Post on 14-May-2023
Running head: Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
AAApppppprrroooaaaccchhheeesss iiinnn IIImmmpppaaacccttt MMMeeeaaasssuuurrreeemmmeeennnttt
fffooorrr ttthhheee NNNooonnnppprrrooofffiiittt SSSeeeccctttooorrr:::
PPPrrraaaccctttiiiccceeesss aaannnddd MMMeeettthhhooodddsss
Rhonda S. Magee
In Fulfillment of Requirements for: MNM 697 Professional Project
A Paper Submitted to:
Master of Nonprofit Management Program Regis University,
Denver, CO
April 27, 2013
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
2
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................4
PROBLEM STATEMENT ......................................................................................................................................8 LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................................................... 10 THE NATURE AND DEFINITION OF IMPACT.......................................................................................................................11 PERCEPTIONS, AND CONCEPTS IN IMPACT MEASUREMENT: ITS VALUE, NECESSITY AND UTILITY........................14 APPROACHES IN IMPACT MEASUREMENT..........................................................................................................................16 CHALLENGES AND DIFFICULTIES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT..........................................................................17
METHODS............................................................................................................................................................. 20 PROCESS ...................................................................................................................................................................................23
RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. 23 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................................................................................23 DISCUSSION, OBSERVATIONS................................................................................................................................................29
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................................... 30 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
3
Abstract In nonprofit organizations, variables such as mission; organizational performance; the
activities and efforts of the organization; and the capacity of the organization all have
influence its impact. Impact, as used in this paper, is defined as: the changes that result
from the activities, efforts and programs of nonprofit organizations. This concept can be
referred to as outcomes or as performance.
The practice of measuring impact is examined from the perspective of a small group of
nonprofits in the Denver, Colorado area and a consulting firm the National Research Center
(NRC). The interviews were conducted to determine the extent of impact measurement
being practiced, and the methods used.
This exploratory study shows that organizations are actively measuring impact, carefully
selecting indicators and that overall, they are satisfied with their methods and tools.
Measurement processes and data to being used proactively, especially to refine programs
and scale efforts through collaborations.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
4
Approaches in Impact Measurement
for the Nonprofit Sector: Practices and Methods
In the nonprofit sector, “multiple bottom lines” exist, making management of 501(c)3
organizations complex, challenging and very different from the for-profit sector. Evaluating the
performance of an organization’s efforts is just one of the management challenges.
It is generally accepted that in the private sector, one common reporting tool, the
Statement of Profit and Loss (with its single bottom line) provides an excellent measure of both
organizational performance and its current state of effectiveness. Other analytical tools exist to
further measure and analyze performance of for-profit entities. Periodic measures of
organizational performance, stated in the financial perspective of profit achievement, when
compared against the investments (or inputs into the firm) help define the degree of efficiency
inherent in the performance. This is known as Return on Investment (ROI) analysis, and provides
a valuable metric in private sector management. These and other common reporting tools provide
a standardized representation of the performance of the private sector entity. In this context,
financial and monetary measures form the common language, and when presented in consistent
and commonly seen formats, they provide a baseline of understanding the financial results and
performance of the profit motivated firm, to and for its constituents.
Some of those same calculations and reports can and should be generated for the
nonprofit organization, but they don’t provide a complete analysis of organizational performance
or effectiveness. The information contained in them doesn’t carry the same weight as in the
private sector. The nonprofit organization operates from the perspective of multiple bottom lines,
the rationales of which are very different and dependent upon multiple constituencies. This
creates complexity in the attempt to recognize and identify performance indicators and measure
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
5
related performance. (Anheier, 2005) While nonprofit leaders and stakeholders know these
reported numbers don’t tell an adequate story, they face many challenges when attempting to
identify other assessment approaches. Despite what they know about the limitations of financial
reports in nonprofit sector organizations, it is easy for directors—who are often successful
members of the private sector business community—to habitually over-focus on traditional
reporting tools, such as the profit and loss statement, balance sheet, cash flow forecast, and
salary budgets. Perhaps if there were better standards of practice established for non-profit
entities that provided easily managed processes for reporting and analyzing impact, performance
and effectiveness, leaders—both board and staff—of nonprofit organizations could focus on
more relevant measures. The traditional financial reporting tools could then be used
appropriately and proactively to serve as an important means to an end, but not as the end itself.
In this approach, the means include the transparent illustration of the fulfillment of accountability
and fiduciary oversight, the efficient management of financial resources for program and
budgetary management. An ends-based perspective of the organization management—with ends
defined as mission and desired results—becomes the catalyst for an entirely different set of
reporting instruments, designed around impact measurement. John Carver, (1997, p. 31) in
Boards that Make a Difference sees ends-based leadership as essential to governance and
organizational success. Ends can be seen as “results, impacts, goals, or outcomes.” (Carver,
1997) This model of reporting on both financial means and organizational ends/objectives forms
the underlying assumption for this research.
Impact for the purpose of this study, is generally understood to be very closely related to
the definition of outcomes, ie, the changes, or the perceived changes created by the work or
programs delivered. The changes can be at the individual, community, or societal level. Impact
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
6
often goes a step further, however, encompassing the value or worth of those outcomes, or a
measure of the ripple effect created in community or society by certain outcomes. Impact is thus
the result of the outcomes, and impact cannot always be measured. Impact can be focused
directly on the subjects or clientele served, or it can refer to a broader host of beneficiaries. For
example, an organization that is heavily engaged in advocacy efforts will be more interested in
how those efforts effect change in society, without an emphasis on individuals per se.
Organizations in various subsectors will define their desired impact differently, so how the
subjects in this study see or define impact differently will be highlighted and discussed.
Impact as a term is used in the literature at times interchangeably with the term
organizational performance and with the term outcome. The use of terms is largely dependent on
the perspective of the speaker or writer, the audience, or the sub sector context. For example,
Greenway, (2001) explains that she uses the term “outcomes” to discuss organizational
performance and results, “because of the considerable disagreement in the human services sector
about what impact means.” (p. 218) In her work, she makes a distinction between the
beneficiaries of the resulting changes, by using Program Outcomes to point to individual benefits
or changes, and Community Outcomes for the cumulative changes that may occur.
There is evidence, presented elsewhere in the Literature Review, that the nonprofit sector
is becoming more aware of the need for a greater emphasis on end outcome or impact
measurement and reporting. While some nonprofit and governmental leaders and experts are
developing standards of practice for impact measurement, the degree to which organizations
have adopted impact measurement as their primary measure of their “bottom line” is not clear. It
is also not clear how impact is defined or measured within and across organizations.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
7
The challenge has been that the social impact created by nonprofits is difficult to
measure, whether qualitatively or quantitatively. There can be resulting ripple effects or
influences that are not directly related to the program or outcomes, and impacts may have future
or long-term characteristics, making calculation of values difficult. In some cases, determining
the value of social change created requires a reliance on external data of various sources,
suggesting a heavy research component of the process. For example, if a training program
provides job readiness skills, the selected impact indicator may relate to the future income
earning potential, over a period of years, derived from a resource such as the National Bureau of
Economic Research. Issues such as these add to the complexity of any measurement task.
With an understanding of the challenges and complexities, and knowing that it is in the
best interest of mission achievement to attempt qualitative or quantitative measurement in spite
of difficulties, how do organizations approach the issue? The extent to which and the manner in
which impact measurement is actually being performed in local organizations is addressed in this
study. Would these organizations be more willing to invest in impact measurement if the benefits
of doing so were more tangible, clear and apparent? The Literature Review seems to reflect this.
Likewise, if there was a shared understanding of the measurement processes and practices
similar organizations have been able to develop; would these measurement theories and practices
become more accessible, common, disciplined and useful? This paper explores this latter
possibility, addressing the issue from the perspectives of both leadership and practice. The study
shows some of the specific indicators of impact that are being selected by organizations and
how—in general terms—they attempt to measure their bottom line impact. The focus will be on
the selection of indicators and how satisfied they are with their methods—standards and tools—
being used for measurement. Beyond the scope of the study is what the targeted organizations
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
8
have learned as a result of putting performance and impact measurement practices into place.
Motivations and criteria of measurement efforts are connected to the main objective of indicator
identification. Mechanics of methodology and feasibility may drive the process of indicator
selection for many organizations, because measurability is a key factor, but these technical
details are not the focus of this project.
The author of this paper is a student in the Regis University Masters of Nonprofit
Management program, for which this Professional Project will partially fulfill the requirements
for graduation. Throughout the paper this student will refer to herself as the “project researcher”.
Exploration of the subject matter was prompted by the researcher’s own experience in nonprofit
management, primarily in financial management, where she observed gaps in organizational
capabilities in the arena of performance measurement and management, and over-emphasis on
financial reporting. Thus, there is likely an inherent bias while the overriding motivation is to
objectively observe what organizations are doing to improve capabilities.
Problem Statement
This study will explore the ways that selected organizations are working to improve
impact measurement practices in the nonprofit sector. The question focuses on to what extent
and in what ways are the leaders of selected organizations seeking to improve the way that they
measure organizational impact? This question begins with how do these organizations currently
approach impact measurement and analysis? Organizations need to demonstrate their value to
those who provide support for their efforts, activities and programs. If we assume that measuring
impact—even when such efforts are imperfect or less-than precise—is essential for
organizational accountability, then there may be value in observing how organizations actually
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
9
approach the effort, and the extent to which they are seeking ways to better communicate their
achievements.
This study explores the specific metrics or indicators of impact that are currently
important to a small selection of subject organizations, and identifies the extent to which they are
satisfied that their measurement methodology is succinctly capturing and communicating their
impact. The selection of the specific indicators will be of interest and will hopefully shed light
on how impact is understood by leaders who are sampled in this study. The detailed mechanical
processes that measure impact and performance will not be directly studied, but it is anticipated
that these concerns will have a bearing on the extent to which the leaders are satisfied with their
current measurement direction. Another aspect of understanding what is being measured is to
also compare it to what is not being measured. Exploration of such omissions may help us to
understand why the variables selected for measurement were chosen.
The topic will be explored from three unique perspectives, described below.
The historical, case specific perspective of The Chanda Plan Foundation, a
nonprofit in Colorado with a mission to provide alternative and integrative
therapies to disabled persons to improve their quality of life, and to demonstrate
the benefits of such therapies so that Medicaid will cover the cost of these
treatments to the disabled. This project researcher’s involvement over time
contributes to this collection of data, as does the interview with one of its board
members.
The perspective of two Denver organizations, working in education and Youth
Development:
o Denver Kids, Inc., a mentoring program which supports DPS
students, grades K-12, who face the personal challenges of higher risk
environments, to successfully complete high school, pursue a post-
secondary option, and become contributing members of the community.
(Who We Are: Denver Kids, Inc, n.d.)
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
10
o Project PAVE (PAVE), an organization, working with children, youth and
families to prevent relationship violence and abuse. The organization's
goal is to stop the generational cycle of relationship violence through
prevention, education, and early intervention. (Home: Project PAVE ,
n.d.) This project researcher’s involvement over time contributes to this
collection of data, as does the interview with one of its board members.
The perspective of a professional evaluation firm, the National Resource Center,
Inc. (NRC), a research firm specializing in performance measurement and
evaluation. (Home: National Resource Center, Inc, 2012)
The selection of subjects is designed to reveal differences and similarities across a variety
of organizations and from different perspectives in the sector. The Chanda Plan is a health and
therapeutic focused organization, with a measurement and evaluation history well known to the
researcher. The Chanda Plan Foundation is included in the study due to their intense impact
measurement process relative to their advocacy efforts. The two organizations that focus
primarily on adolescents provide the opportunity for comparison within a sub-sector. The
inclusion of the evaluation consultancy group will lend a broad—and hopefully balanced—
perspective on the practices and attitudes currently observed by them in their professional
engagements.
Literature Review
This chapter will discuss the nature and definition of impact and organizational
performance; current perceptions of and concepts around the value, necessity and utility of
impact measurement; observed approaches to measurement in practice; along with the challenges
and difficulties concerning measurement of impact.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
11
The Nature and Definition of Impact
Discussion of impact and organizational performance in the third sector has become a
much written-about topic. The book Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact
Nonprofits, (2007) by Grant and Crutchfield, presents the qualities of high-impact organizations,
and begins with an acknowledgement of the difficulty in defining the term. “Our first major
challenge was to define success in a sector that has no universal means of measuring it.” (p. 225)
Without the use of financial metrics, as used in the for-profit sector, the lack of accepted and
universal nonprofit measures of success present a major challenge. Grant and Crutchfield
acknowledge that defined outcomes will be varied, and are dependent upon “…mission, model
and issue area.” After exploring the theory that budgetary information might be used for their
study purposes to gauge organizational impact, the authors concluded, “…budgets are not useful
for measuring impact or effectiveness.” (Grant, 2007, p. 226) The size of a budget can certainly
point to the scope and extent of an organization’s activities, but it really does not address the
results achieved by those activities, or the worth of those results. After first determining the
parameters for the design of their study, they decided on a “two-pronged” definition of impact.
(p 227) The first part is comprised of measurable outputs, and addresses the question: “did the
organization achieve substantial and sustained results at the national or international level?”
(p.227) The second part of the definition was “..more abstract and qualitative. We wanted to
study organizations that had achieved the most significant impact on a system or provided a
model that other groups had adopted.” (Grant, 2008, p. 227) The first part of this definition could
readily be used in discussing any organization, with the “national or international” level modified
to serve the specific realities of the organization. For example, if we assume that a small
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
12
organization can have dramatic impact in a small community, then a localized geographical
scope can be part of the stated goal against which to measure real achievement. While the second
part of their definition certainly recognizes that impact includes abstract and qualitative
components—and thus can be difficult to measure—it seems to this project researcher to be very
customized to the specifics of their study. It may not be a desired goal for most organizations to
change existing and established systems or to be held up as a model for others to replicate.
In The 21st Century Nonprofit, Firstenberg (2009) echoes the observation on the absence
of a profit motive: this “…does not mean nonprofits cannot be efficiently run, provided they
devise a system of measuring how effective and efficient their operations are.” Rigorous review
of the measures is essential to nonprofit efficiency. (Firstenberg, 2009)
A good way to understand impact is to consider the changes produced by the activities of
the organization. What changed and what differences were produced as a result of its efforts?
What difference did it make? (Stubbs, 1998) Stubbs relates this question to nonprofit measures
of achievement, which involves an “acceptance of standards of evaluation.”
Ralser (2007) introduces the concept of organizational value, and the Organizational
Value Proposition, which is concerned with the value of outcomes. He proposes this as a concept
that organizations must embrace to achieve long-term sustainability. The interchangeability of
related terms comes into focus too, when he says, “Outcomes are broadly defined as the impacts
the organization wants to have on people or society.” (2007, p. 81) Other authors define impact
in almost the reverse, as being comprised of outcomes.
In Nonprofit Lifecycles, Stevens, (2008) explains capacity for nonprofits from the
perspective of three concepts: “capacity, performance, and effectiveness create a continuum of
organizational success with capacity as the means, performance the measurement, and
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
13
effectiveness (shown as impact in her illustration) as the ultimate goal.” (2008, p. 13) This
understanding of impact is most commonly seen in the literature, and is based on what ends are
hoped for in the operating and delivering of nonprofit outputs. It seems clear that in order to
measure performance, an organization must know what that ultimate goal will look like. The
ability to articulate what success will look like is the first step in selection of indicators of
desired impact.
Similarly, Saul in Benchmarking for Nonrofits: How to Measure, Manage, and Improve
Performance, ( 2004) understands impact as the nonprofit’s “equivalent to profit…While
businesses make a profit, nonprofits make a difference.” (p. 2) His premise is that if a process
can be “quantified and measured, it can also be benchmarked and improved.” (Saul, 2004)
Finally Flynn, (2001) makes further distinctions between outcomes as the “what
occurred” factor of impact measurement, and the inclusion (in impact) of “why” the change
happened. Impact includes typical views of outcomes, but assigns credit or blame on the
outcome produced. (p. 8) Her approach relies on cause and effect.
To talk about impact measurement, one also needs to understand the definition of
indicators, as this is essential to the process. Flynn (2001, p. 23) defines these as “statistics that
are collected or used with a purpuse and imbued with meaning...” Indicators point to what
“should be” for comparison to what “is”. The development of appropritate indicators should
never be sloppy, as a good indicator can clarify relationships and values, even when the
mechanical instruments make the final data reports appear less than precise. Even with less than
perfect technical processes, an organization can gain valuable information if the right indicators
are selected. (Flynn, 2001)
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
14
While the literature suggests a variety of definitions, there is much support for the
definition (as previously described in the introduction) of impact used in this paper: the changes,
or the perceived changes created by the work or programs delivered. The changes can be at the
individual, community, or societal level. Impact often goes a step further, however,
encompassing the value or worth of those outcomes, or a measure of the ripple effect created in
community or society by certain outcomes. Impact is the result of the outcomes, and impact
cannot always be measured. Most importantly, though, impact will be subjective, dependent
upon the realities of each organization.
Perceptions, and Concepts in Impact measurement: Its Value, Necessity and Utility
In The End of Fund Raising, Saul, (2011), observes that changes in the world at large
have changed the landscape for nonprofits. As nations, cultures and communities face economic,
social and environmental crises, new solutions outside established conventions are being sought.
This has led to the rising interest in the social capital market. “Today social change is no longer
exogenous to our economy. As a result, neither are nonprofits.” (p.16) He proposes that this
means that the “product” manufactured by nonprofits is social impact, and this, in his view has
become mainstream economic currency. If what he states is true, it goes a long way to explain
much of the value, current necessity and increased interest in impact measurement. In the social
capital markets, impact can be quantified in economic terms, beyond a simple reporting of
outputs. (Saul, 2011) Further, Saul reminds us, it is perfectly acceptable to have economic
benefit resulting from charitable activities. He also contends that because of the importance of
solving social and environmental problems—due to the perceived urgency of the issues—people
really do need to know what is being achieved by nonprofit activities. Performance is something
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
15
that is of real concern. “Nonprofits will no longer be able to duck the measurement question by
citing the complexity of their work.” (Saul, 2011)
The value of impact measurement as a promotional and relationship-building tool is
gaining more attention. Ralser’s (2007) work on impact measurement focuses largely on what he
sees as the motivation and needs of today’s sophisticated donor. He characterizes these donors
as investors in social change, and finds that “prospective investors in a nonprofit want to know
‘what was accomplished with my money?’ not ‘how much was spent getting my money?” (2007,
p. 6) Indeed nonprofit practitioners and the philanthropic community have long focused on the
fund raising ratio as an important metric, highlighting what is spent by organizations in the fund
raising effort. This ratio is still used extensively to “rate” the performance of nonprofits. Ralser
argues that this model of measurement will not serve organizations well as the competition for
funding becomes more pronounced. Donors want to know to what extent negative social
conditions are being eliminated, and to what extent positive social change is being created.
(Ralser, 2007, p. 6) Saul, (2011, p. 23) echoes Ralser’s view, and when he talks about
innovation, he speaks of donors as those who are really “buying impact, not just funding
programs.” Saul promotes the Value Proposition concept as a powerful way to articulate impact,
sell impact and ultimately to attract “impact buyers”—those who will support and invest in the
efforts.
The ratio that really matters, to contemporary philanthropists and social investors,
according to both Ralser (ROI, 2007) and Saul (2011) is the ROI, or return on investment, not as
defined in the for-profit sector, but as a measure of efficiency in the nonprofit sector. As
described by Saul, ROI allows stakeholders to see what impact is produced, and at what rate of
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
16
efficiency, or “bang for the buck.” When data such as this is used to communicate with
stakeholders, the relationship changes.
Approaches in Impact Measurement
The extent and degree of actual impact measurement practice according to writings
reviewed shows a range of approaches. According to “Nonprofit Governance in the United
States, Findings on Performance and Accountability” (Ostrower, 2007) was able to show that
approximately 26% of boards surveyed did not evaluate at least once every two years whether
their organization was accomplishing its mission. She does not discuss the implication of this
statistic: that this may mean that a higher number do evaluate at least this frequently.
One approach to impact data utilization was highlighted in the literature repeatedly is
impact as a tool for strategic planning. “Value metrics” bring objectivity to the process of
strategic planning, because “decisions can be based on the value of the outcomes produced.”
(Ralser, 2007, p. 75) When the strategic plan is developed with impact and performance
measurement in mind, it becomes a plan that has great value as a management tool. It becomes a
road map focused on definitive destinations. Talley echoed this thee, (Using Imperfect Metrics
Well: Tracking Progress and Driving Change, 2010) stating, “Without a means to measure
progress, strategic plan implementation is ineffective at best and impossible at worst.”
Organizations need hard data on outcomes in order to manage and assess the strategic plan. It is
often the case that strategic plans are developed after intensive and time consuming efforts, only
to sit on a shelf without further reference once compiled. The lack of measurability in the
composition of the strategic plan may be a major reason for this lost opportunity. Considering
metrics as plans are developed and then adopting a regular discipline of measurement ensures
that the strategic plan has value and utility to the organization.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
17
Greenway (2001) published her study of working approaches to measurement in The
Emerging Stastus of Outcome Measurement. The various types of measurement tools were
observed in her work. The organizations she observed as engaging in rigorous measurement
practices included Girls Incorporated, Big Brothers, Big Sisters of America, Girl Scouts of the
USA, The American Red Cross, and several Certification and Accreditation organizations, all of
which have sophisticated national/affiliate organizational structures. Her study concludes that
most smaller human service organizations work in isolation to address measurement processes,
and much needs to be developed to provide essential and reliable tools and methods. A platform
for sharing of successful methods would benefit the sector, and could be especially valuable to
those smaller organizations not supported by a national office or umbrella organization.
Proper implementation and method selection is key to effective measurement, but only a
small amount of the available material on this topic was reviewed. One useful piece was
“Measuring Social Impact: Seven Deadly Sins of Impact Evaluation” (Forti, 2012). Knowing
what to avoid is an important step to understanding best practice and developing a quality
program. Forti promotes, among other things, the formation of an evaluation advisory
committee, the acceptance that impact is an ongoing process, and that methods do not always
have to be scientifically correct to be of great value. Another approach mentioned repeatedly is
benchmarking, deemed especially useful to nonprofits for problem solving, (Letts, Ryan, & and
Grossman, 1999) but difficult to implement in the nonprofit realm. Benchmarking utilizes,
external, comparative data to gauge the performance of the organization.
Challenges and Difficulties in Performance Measurement
While the literature reveals much about the obstacles to reliable and credible
measurement practices, Saul, in The End of Fund Raising: Raise More Money by Selling Your
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
18
Impact, (2011) says that the selection of indicators—and thus the entire process— becomes
much easier when nonprofits begin at the right place. He says that the right place is the knowing
of “exactly who (your) stakeholders are and what they want!” Clarity around this foundational
point is essential to impact measurement. He prescribes less reliance on fancy methodology,
expensive software and consulting teams, and recommends to organizations “let your
stakeholders define your success”. (Saul, 2011, p. 60) He does not discuss in direct terms the
issue of competing goals, different perceptions and cultural differences between the stakeholder
groups and how that might complicate the task. He does discuss the complexity of stakeholder
engagement to arrive at understanding of what stakeholders want. He sees great relationship-
building value in a proactive stakeholder engagement process, beyond merely assisting in the
identification of impact indicators. The benefits to the organization are far reaching.
Some of the authors reviewed spoke to some underlying philosophical concerns with
measurement in the nonprofit sector. DiMaggio (2001), discussed “sentimental attachments to
rationality” inherent in measurement processes, leading —according to DiMaggio—to unrealistic
expectations of rational techniques. There are certain instances, he points out, where rationality is
ill suited for the subject at hand. He concludes however, that even when rationality fails, the
application of rational approaches “may move people to self-improvement and cooperative
actions and so enhance the capacity of organizations.” (DiMaggio, 2001, p. 250) It becomes, for
many organizations, a “legitimatizing ritual” demonstrating a willingness to take responsibility
and commitment to accountability. Essentially, he proposes introduction of logic and mechanical
processes to balance the “softer” side of nonprofit organizations: the compassion motive. It
seems reasonable that his suggestion incorporates an emphasis on competency while not
replacing or undermining the passion-driven model.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
19
Perhaps even more profound is considering the words of Weisbrod (2001), warning that
what is not measured—because it may be impossible to do so—may in fact be the very important
and critical deliverable of the nonprofit organization. The danger is that those unmeasured
outcomes may, by default, be valued at zero. The resulting misallocation of resources or strategic
decision-making can be significant. (2001, p. 6)
Measurement, when well-designed and well-implemented, is seen as an exhausting,
resource-intensive and expensive endeavor. It can be equally difficult when practiced in the most
simplified and crude levels. According to Talley and Fram (2010) , nonprofits must use whatever
value they can find in even the most imperfect of metrics. The science behind sophisticated
methodologies of analysis may exist, but nonprofits simply don’t have the resources to approach
measurement in sophisticated ways. (Talley, 2010) They describe the “imperfection” of typical
measurement as being related to anecdotal, subjective, interpretive or qualitative metrics, or
those based on small samples or situations that are not easily replicated. They conclude that
rather than strive for a perfect system or abandon the process altogether, organizations should
strive for using imperfect metrics well. (Talley, 2010) A professional, well-designed approach
will overcome many of the problems associated with imperfect data. They suggest
professionalizing the management of impact measurement by adopting discipline in the process.
Examples include internal agreement on relevant outcomes, agreement on specific indicators,
and establishing rules for comparison of outcomes to strategic objectives. Their approach
demands much emphasis on relationship factors, which they see as critical to a positive result.
For example, developing a respectful, transparent and credible measurement process builds
essential trust.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
20
To summarize, the literature reviewed reveals that there is a strong movement towards
not only outcome measurement, but towards a more expansive measurement of social and
community impact, while pointing out the challenges and difficulties of those approaches. In
spite of challenges, many nonprofits are looking for effective methodology and approaches,
because current social and economic realities demand it. As stated well by Saul (2011, p. 21),
“ ‘I don’t know’ becomes a very expensive proposition when people are attaching economic
value to actual results.” Stakeholders and the public demand to know how well—in credible
terms—organizations are performing.
Methods
This chapter will describe the approach used to identify and compare current attitudes
and practices related to impact measurement from three unique perspectives, with the specific
data collection strategies described below.
Subjects for the study were selected to show practices in a small group of similar
organizations working in the same sub-sector (youth services/education support), while also
illustrating practices in a same sized organization in the health care subsector. Because one of the
selected organizations is currently working with an outside consulting firm on an impact
measurement project, I saw this as an opportunity to draw upon their broader perspective.
Consistent with the project’s exploratory nature, this illustrative and observational approach
seemed appropriate at the outset.
The Study subjects are as follows -
1. The Chanda Plan Foundation. The Chanda Plan Foundation is a nonprofit in
Colorado with a mission to provide alternative and integrative therapies to
disabled persons to improve their quality of life, and to demonstrate the benefits
of such therapies so that Medicaid will cover the cost of these treatments to the
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
21
disabled. This project researcher has been engaged in a voluntary role at the
Chanda Plan Foundation for approximately 18 months. In this role I have worked
in the development of evaluation and outcome measurement. The historical notes,
records and reports will be utilized to build the timeline and story of this practical
application, according to mutual agreement established at the outset of the
evaluation project. The perspective of the CEO is woven into the study via this
historical involvement, i.e., through a series of conversations and discussions
during the course of the evaluation project. The perspective of one Board
member, Joe Brucker was collected via an interview on April 26.
2. Two Denver organizations, each working in educational support services and in
Youth Development: Denver Kids, Inc., and Project PAVE. A third organization,
Florence Crittenton Services of Denver was initially selected, but declined to
participate.
a. This project researcher worked two years ago with Project PAVE in a
consultancy capacity. The consulting work revolved around selection of
key performance indicators to support a strategic planning effort. This
points to some bias on the part of the researcher; in so far as interest in
seeing what the performance measurement processes are in place now,
relative to that earlier period. Certainly, there was a desire to see that
early effort may have created more focus in that organization in the arena
of impact measurement. Due to the previous involvement, gaining access
to the Executive Director was quite easy; Mike Johnson was happy to
participate, and the interview was conducted by phone on April 19.
b. The inclusion of Denver Kids, Inc was suggested by the course facilitator,
and upon review of the organization’s web site, it appeared that they were
well suited for this project. The website reveals a sophisticated level of
data sharing than is not always seen, which seemed to indicate a more
highly developed approach to impact measurement. It appeared that they
are actively engaged in measuring their clearly defined indicators of
success. The first contact with them resulted in a connection with the
CFO, who was eager to connect this project researcher to a board member.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
22
Access to the board member arose, necessitating a change in the original
plan: ultimately the CFO provided responses via email due to the
timelines.
c. Study data was gathered via phone interviews with either the CEO or a
board member from each organization. Interview questions were
standardized, but interview formats were informal, and evolved per the
specifics of each situation. Due to the conversational tone of the
interviews, some non-standardized information is incorporated into the
final collection of responses.
3. A representative from The National Resource Center, Inc. an evaluation-
consulting firm was interviewed by phone on April 15. Interview questions were
customized to the nature of this participant’s work, while maintaining as much
consistency as possible. It was hoped that the inclusion of this unique perspective
would add valuable inputs to the study. This consulting firm is currently working
on an impact study for The Chanda Plan Foundation so that critical data can be
used in both a state and in a federal advocacy effort to change the benefits
provided to disabled people who receive Medicaid. The National Resource
Center, Inc.—as its name suggests—“is a research firm specializing n
performance measurement and evaluation.” They work primarily with local
governments, foundations and nonprofits. (Home: National Resource Center, Inc,
2012)
All those interviewed indicated interest in impact measurement, and they were eager to
discuss their experiences.
The project is exploratory in nature, and serves to inquire as to current practice. The
responses will be subjective, and the responses will be from the perspective of the person
interviewed.
A disadvantage of this collection of information is working with a small sample of
organizations. The time frame and scope of the project dictate this limitation.
The full set of interview questions is shown in Appendix A.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
23
Process The responses collected from this survey were compiled in a consolidated format for
comparison purposes. An edited and condensed version of this is shown in Appendix B. This
then formed the basis of a narrative that describes trends and observations. The narrative below
describes the significant aspects of the responses.
The analysis, discussion and comparisons are not intended to show relative rating or any
hierarchical determination of the practices represented, but rather, to illustrate any noticeable
trends, and to understand the practices and experiences of those participating. This understanding
was helpful in the formation of recommendations for additional efforts, improvements and
further research.
Results, Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter reviews and discusses the content gathered during the interviews and
provides recommendations based on the information. It was anticipated, due to the variety of
study participants, that the measurement practices would be diverse and unique, and the findings
reflect that to be the case. To prevent unintended and out-of-context judgments from being made,
the identities of the nonprofit organizations have been somewhat disguised in the discussion,
while the participating consulting firm has been named throughout.
Findings Those interviewed were eager to share their views on the subject and to share details of
how they approach measurement, as well as some of their frustrations. It was clear not only from
the content of the responses, but from the tone as well, that there is genuine interest and
engagement around impact measurement. Those in leadership positions in organizations want to
know that they are making a difference, and want to utilize the best methods to communicate
their results.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
24
Mission focused approaches. The organizations studied are firmly focused on mission
as the primary indicator of impact. As stated by one CEO, “ Mission is used to form every
decision in the agency.” That agency’s evaluations are made against the mission, and recent
evaluations drove the agency to make programming changes to ensure that they achieve mission
more effectively through their programming efforts.
The professional firm NRC, Inc reveals that they provide evaluation services mostly in
regards to individual outcomes, and that their clients are clear about linking results to mission.
The tools and materials they provide support the process from the earliest stage, explaining the
importance of mission and related indicator selection and the best standards for the selection
process so that indicators are closely aligned with mission.
Indicators of impact: selection. For some organizations, and at certain stages in
organizational life cycles, impact relates most directly to those served. The emphasis tends to be
toward: how are the lives or experiences of our clients changed as a result of the work of our
organization? as opposed to: how does our work change the community or society? NRC works
with many organizations to provide client-focused measurement services. Likewise,
Organization A uses many different instruments, most of which—at this time—emphasize the
individual impacts. Based on participant responses, these individual-focused approaches to
impact are effective and provide a definite value to these organizations.
The selection of indicators of impact, when looking at individual-focused measurement,
varies widely across the organizations observed. At the Chanda Plan, the indicators are very
specifically defined within the Quality of Life evaluation program—which is highly structured
both from a theoretical and a practical perspective—and are developed by the CEO and program
management team, with no involvement from the Board. For the development of the participant
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
25
survey instruments, the board was not consulted regarding the specific outcomes to be measured,
although the board does see the results reported in a dashboard format, quarterly.
Organization A has developed a set of clearly defined client-centered indicators which
are measured rigorously, but when initially asked if they have identified specific indicators, the
answer was “no”. Upon further exploration, it was clear that while the indicators were not
considered “formal” because the board had not undertaken any action to ratify or state them in
some official way, indeed the selected indicators were being used consistently, clearly and with a
high degree of transparency—in other words, all team members are clear about the specific
indicators and bench marks.
Organization B, is clear that their performance indicators drive the HR performance
management process as well, which while often the seen in the for profit sector, is less common
in nonprofit organizations.
There was evidence, too, that there is interest and activity in the arena of community and
social impact measurement. For example, NRC is engaged with Organization C to measure the
broader impact of the pilot program. This will be a powerful project, producing data that
potentially could change the way Medicaid funding is provided to those with spinal cord injuries
in the state of Colorado. Understanding how the program can impact the long-range health and
medical costs for these persons, and thus impact the funding sources is critical to the advocacy
efforts of the organization.
Indicator selection in regards to these far-reaching (looking at the community and
society) impact measurements reflects a high degree of specificity. For example, at Organization
C, in considering the potential benefits of the special waiver program (Colorado Pilot Program),
they view medical savings as a key indicator of success, and a measureable one as well. So, cost
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
26
comparisons between those in the program and those who are not are being developed for
rigorous analysis and demonstration of the impact—and thus the social value—of the program.
For Organization A, being able to demonstrate long-term behavior changes and life experience
improvements is key to demonstrating significant impact. While Organization A has not yet
developed those longitudinal study instruments, they have begun to identify and discuss the
indicators that would be used in such a study.
Measurement practices. Practices seem to be dependent upon the capability of the
organization and the relative value of impact measurement to its specific cause. For example,
Organization A has gradually developed evaluation methodology and related philosophy over its
26-year history, so it utilizes various tools well, and has the understanding in place of how to do
so even better. Its stability as an organization at this life-cycle stage puts it in good position to
develop those improvements effectively. Because of the collaborative nature of its partnerships
with the city and the Denver Public Schools in which it works—which carries with it an
significant accountability burden— Organization A has been motivated to continually develop
and improve upon its strong evaluation program.
Organization C has been able, at a relatively earlier life-cycle stage, to develop some
well-structured, reliable and useful metrics for its quality of life program. Their evaluation
program has formed a strong foundation for its further-reaching impact measurement relative to
its advocacy efforts and pilot program. The Foundation has been able to implement these
processes by leveraging its partnerships, including the local grant-making foundation
community, qualified volunteers, and its governmental project sponsors. This case illustrates the
relationship between the importance of demonstrable impact and the investment that is made in
the evaluation processes. Because expansion of advocacy efforts to other states and at the federal
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
27
level requires the demonstration of individual, community and social value, the need to develop
rigorous measurement practices was clear.
Organization B, uses their impact data to populate their internal dashboard reporting
tools, which are presented regularly to the board of directors. This is an excellent example of a
movement away from financially focused presentations, which was recommended throughout the
literature. As stated in the interview, “The most effective measurement tool is the dashboard
report that is presented to the board of directors each quarter (which connects performance to)
our Employee Performance Management System…it includes organization-wide goals,
individual performance planning (goal-setting), ongoing communication/dialogue and year-end
evaluations.” Putting impact measurement into management practice in this way enables
organizations to leverage their investments made in a complex process.
The clients served by the NRC are typically looking for a low-cost tool so that
they can meet funder’s evaluation requirements. This implies that they don’t currently have the
resources for more sophisticated processes. The template approach does a good job of measuring
the primary and most easily measured indicators of impact, while simplifying the process for
those administering the process. NRC does not provide facilitation services relative to the
selection of indicators; they provide the instructions so that clients can properly approach this
aspect of the project. Presumably, other needs related to impact measurements have not yet been
identified, simply don’t exist within those organizations, or are not yet being addressed due to
resource or capacity limitations.
What is not being measured? Organization A has been through a cycle of studying their
various evaluation tools and making programmatic changes based on measured results. Now they
are addressing gaps and looking to expand and improve. This means they are studying the
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
28
feasibility and practicality of implementing more broad based impact measurements: longitudinal
participant studies, peer group evaluations and community based approaches, and looking for
assistance and partners to help with these developments. Resources and capacity are a major
issue, as these efforts will require staff time, and financial resources. The interviewee was clear
about this gap in their overall approaches, and is developing strategies to implement far-reaching
measurement processes and reporting, but also acknowledged that perfection is not achievable,
and that it will always be an ongoing process of knowing there is more to be done.
The NRC interview revealed that most of their nonprofit work focuses on individual
outcomes, to the extent that it fits with the template they offer their clients. They don’t see a lot
of broader-impact studies being done, but that is because those studies are costly, and most
organizations don’t have the resources. The social-impact study being conducted by them for
Organization C is an exception and is being funded by the State of Colorado. This is consistent
with their business model; most of their large scope projects are conducted for their
governmental and municipality clients, where funds tend to be available to support the effort.
Board involvement in impact measurement. The extent of involvement varies from
one organization to another. At Organization A, the board is significantly engaged in the process.
The PAVE program subcommittee (a committee of the larger board) reviews impact reports
regularly, the last time being Fall 2012. The CEO states that the current measurement and
reporting processes are working well for the board, they understand, use and appreciate the
information that is being provided.
The discussion with the NRC representative reveals a different dynamic regarding board
involvement. In most cases, the nonprofit staff members are initiating the measurement
programs. In many cases, the first driver is external, that of funders who are requiring impact
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
29
data to support either a grant request or a grant report. Members of staff are the recipients of the
funder request, and those staff members then put the evaluation process into place. NRC sees
cases where the board is actually pushing back, hesitant to allocate the necessary resources.
At Organization C, in regards to its original program, the board is involved as a recipient
of the information (dashboard reports), reviewing the information thoughtfully, and then using
the data to make or ratify decisions. The board was not involved in the initiation, selection of
impact indicators, or direction of the evaluation program. When provided with the arguments and
recommendations of the CEO, they allocated the resources to fund the project, but the primary
driver was the CEO, and the volunteers, including members of the Healing Committee, who
serve the function of the program staff. The board did not define or establish the indicators at the
outset, but as the evaluation process has evolved it appears that they do have (based on the board
member interview) strong interest in the indicators that are being measured.
In all the study cases, there was the equivalent of an evaluation advisory group, whether
staffed by board members or staff member, tasked with overseeing and guiding the measurement
practices. This is consistent with the best practice recommendations made by Forti, (2012)
Future Direction As noted, organizations such as Organization A are looking forward to
ongoing improvements and expansion of both their scope of impact measurement and the
indicator selection. Both Denver Kids, Inc and Organization C are recognizing that limitations in
present capacity influence their evaluation efforts. There is a noticeable trend towards social
impact, but it seems to align with larger scale efforts and later life-cycle stages.
Discussion, Observations The discussions with the participants did verify that measuring program and
organizational impact is not easy, for a host of complex reasons. One of these is that
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
30
organizations and leaders within them understand the definition differently, and another is that
impact is not always quantifiable. This was brought up, for example, in the discussion of how to
measure advocacy efforts and impact. The role of the board in establishing of practice standards
and impact selection was not consistent from one organization to another, which is to be
expected.
The participants spoke directly and with clear awareness about the indicators that are not
being measured at their respective organizations. This was not always a point of frustration,
implying a broad acceptance that impact measurement is not an exact science and that perfect
measurement practices are not possible in the nonprofit sector. Some comments directly echoed
language seen in the literature review. In the words of one respondent, “it is not an end-game and
we will never be finished fine-tuning.” In spite of the recognized deficiencies, all participants
were clear that they find great value in the data they have available and general satisfaction with
the practices they’ve been able to put into place.
Conclusions
The participating organizations are actively engaged in impact measurement to varying
degrees, and with intentional focus on intensifying their measurement practices, so that
organizational performance can be improved. The professional consulting firm NRC stated that
their clients, while only at the beginning stage of evaluation programming, are engaged in
measurement efforts and have a “sincere desire to learn what needs to be better.” This was
echoed throughout the study. All of them are satisfied with their efforts and the tools they are
currently using.
A significant result of the study is the confirmation of the assumption in the problem
statement, that “how organizations define impact is purely subjective, dependent upon the
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
31
specific realities of their circumstances.” Some of them look only at client-specific metrics,
while some are looking at social impact. This works for these organizations; they address impact
from whatever perspective makes sense for their situation. All of the nonprofits participating
directly are proactively engaged in impact measurement, devoting significant time, attention and
resources to the efforts.
It is especially noteworthy that each of them is also engaged in partnering or
collaborative projects with other nonprofits and/or governmental agencies (Colorado Department
of Health Care Policy and Finance; Denver Public Schools). This project researcher concludes
that these collaborations impart—as noted in the earlier discussion—a high measure of
motivation, and sometimes a direct requirement of accountability, for the demonstration of
impact and performance. The organizations referenced by NRC—those just beginning to engage
in evaluation efforts—tended to be smaller, more self-contained organizations, but for them too,
the external stakeholders, i.e., their funders, were the primary motivators for their efforts.
From this observation, it would appear that as collaborations, innovative funding schemes
and partnering ventures increase in the nonprofit sector; the practice of impact measurement will
become more widespread. It is further predicted that this trend will drive more sophisticated
approaches and measurement projects will target larger scale indicators, so that a social
perspective will more often be the norm. Organizations that have already begun to build
evaluation practices will be able to build upon those, as the study participants have done.
The perceived connection between measurement practices and community/public
partnering demands further research. Is there a definite trend in the direction of partnering and
new funding strategies for the nonprofit sector? If so, how does that directly define the
requirements for impact measurements? Such a study would complement this one greatly.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
32
This project would have benefited from a larger pool of participants; the timeline of the
project imposed limits on the size of the pool. The results are useful nonetheless. Based on the
literature and the information collected from the respondents, it is not expected that additional
observations would reveal significant differences in general, but specific variations would be
interesting to explore.
The interview questions did not include a reference to the anticipated audiences who
would potentially see the data. This would be an interesting topic, because the target audience
may drive the selection of indicators. Similarly, the study did not explore the various
stakeholders who drive the objectives of the organization, and how that relates to impact
measurement, as suggested in the literature.
As suggested by various literature references, benchmarking for nonprofits might hold
value and exploring how that is being implemented might be an excellent topic for further
research. An interesting aspect of benchmarking is how it might serve to increase cooperation
and collaboration among organizations in the sector—which this study has shown to be an
important factor in impact measurement.
From a theoretical point of view, impact measurement is an inexact and evolving science.
In practice, this is confirmed—it is an developing, imperfect process for most organizations, but
one that holds value and utility, for decision making, accountability and for relationship building.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
33
References
Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management and Policy. New York,
N.Y.: Routledge. (pp 225-241)
Carver, J. (1997). Boards That Make a Diference (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DiMaggio, P. (2001). Measuring the Impact of the Nonprofit Sector on Society is Probably Impossible but Possibly Useful: A Sociological Perspective. In Flynn, P. & Hodgkinson, V. A., (Ed.), Measuring the Impact of the Nonprofits Sector. (pp 249-272) New York, NY: Kluwer Adademic/Planum Publishers.
Firstenberg, P. B. (2009). The 21st Century Nonprofit: Managing in the Age of Governance (2nd ed.) New York, NY. Foundation Center.
Flynn, P. & Hodgkinson, V. A., (2001). Measuring the Contributions of the Nonprofit Sector. New York, NY, USA: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Forti, M. (2012 Feb22). Measuring Social Impact, Seven Deadly Sins of Impact Evaluation. Stanford Social Innovation Review
Grant, H. M. & Crutchfeld, L. R. (2007 vol/ Fall). Creating High-Impact Nonprofits. Stanford Social Innovation Review .
Grant, H. M. & Crutchfeld, L. R. (2008). Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Greenway, M. T. (2001). The Emerging Status of Outcome Measurement in the Nonprofit Human Serice Sector. In Flynn, P. and Hodgkinson, V. A., (Ed.), Measuring the Impact of the Nonprofit Sector. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Home: National Resource Center, Inc. (2012). Retrieved 2013, 7-April from National Resource Center, inc: www. n-r-c.com
Home: Project PAVE . (n.d.). Retrieved 2013, 20-March from Project PAVE Web Site: http://www.projectpave.org/
Letts, C. W., Ryan, W. P., & Grossman, A. (1999). High Performance Nonprofit Organizations: Managing Upstream for Greater Impact. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ostrower, F. (2007). Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on Performance and Accountability from the First National Representative Study. the Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. The Urban Institute.
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
34
Ralser, T. (2007). ROI for Nonprofits: The Key to Sustsainability. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, .
Saul, J. (2004). Benchmarking for Nonrofits: How to Measure, Manage, and Improve Performance. Saint Paul, MN, USA: Wilder Publishing.
Saul, J. (2011). The End of Fund Raising: Raise More Money by Selling Your Impact. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Stevens, S. K. (2008). Nonprofit Lifecycles: Stasge-Based Wisdom for Nonprofit Capacity (2nd ed.). Wayzata, MN: Stagewise Enterprises, Inc.
Stubbs, R. (1998, January). A Recipe for Non-Profit Success: Managing The Linkages and Key Elements of Successful Organizations. Fund Raising Management .
Talley, J. L. (2010). Using Imperfect Metrics Well: Tracking Progress and Driving Change. Leader to Leader (vol 55), (pp. 52-58).
Weisbrod, B. A. (2001). An Agenda for Quantitative Evaluation of the Nonprofit Sector: Need, Obstacles, and Approaches. In Flynn, P. & Hodgkinson, V. A., Measuring the Impact of the Nonprofit Sector (pp. 273-290). New York, NY, USA: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Who We Are: Denver Kids, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved 2013, March 20 from Denver Kids, Inc. Web Site: http://denverkidsinc.org/who-we-are
Approaches in Impact Measurement for the Nonprofit Sector
35
Appendix A Interviewee:
Title:
Organization:
Date of interview:
An outline of interview questions is as follows:
1. What is the mission of your organization? Does your organization use it as the
primary statement of purpose against which you try to assess your impact on
individuals and the community?
2. How are formal indicators of performance selected on the behalf of the
organization?
3. What are the 2 or 3 best indicators of impact for your organization?
4. How does your organization view the importance impact measurement?
5. Of the indicators mentioned, which, if any are you currently attempting to
measure?
6. What is your most effective tool for impact measurement? (please describe this)
7. When was the last time the board addressed the measurement standards being
used—for best fit, for reliability etc.
8. What important known impacts are not being measured, and why?
9. Has any member of the board every expressed any frustrating on measurement
reporting standards at the organization?
10. Have you ever engaged professional help in developing, assessing or improving
measurement practices?