Common Outcomes and Performance Measures

Excerpted from Benchmarking for Nonprofits: How to Measure, Manage, and Improve Performance

While every organization must select the outcomes and measures that are most appropriate for its work, some commonalities are beginning to emerge. Common indicators for financial sustainability, management effectiveness, and community engagement are easier to come by. For example, a quick scan of commonly used financial indicators suggests measuring the diversification of revenue sources, percent of earned income, donor renewals, revenue growth, and positive operating income. Common indicators used to gauge management effectiveness include board meeting attendance, employee turnover rates, percentage of board members as donors, employee satisfaction rates, and technology competency ratings.

The real challenge has been in trying to standardize program metrics. The argument is that every program is different, so how can it be possible to use any common measures? While it is indeed true that each program engages in a different set of activities (that is, every organization has a distinct theory of change), the answer to the puzzle lies in looking at the sector through a different lens. Rather than looking at the sector vertically, that is, by program type, nonprofits must look at the sector horizontally, across programs, to identify and highlight common outcomes.

Irrespective of program type or theory of intervention, many organizations are striving for similar outcomes. Attaching measures to these common “meta-outcomes,” rather than common programs, opens up the possibility of cross-comparison and learning. These meta-outcomes typically include changes in knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and status or condition, and assessment of various quality-of-service characteristics. For example, at first glance, a job training program and an arts education program suggest totally different outcomes and measures. Upon closer examination, however, it can be determined that both programs share a common outcome: “improving a skill” (one in the arts, the other in basic job readiness). And there are commonly accepted performance measures to track skill development (for example, pre- and post-test scores, cost per person trained, graduation rates, matriculation rates).

The Woods Fund
Recently the Woods Fund of Chicago, a family foundation led by Ricardo Millett, conducted a learning experiment with a cohort of grantees engaged in different programmatic activities (for example, advocacy, education, and housing). Each organization was asked to complete a logic model. Not surprisingly, each organization’s activities and goals were articulated differently. Then, the groups were invited to a “peer-learning” session that focused on sharing common, “horizontal” outcomes rather than “vertical” program activities. What Woods found was incredibly revealing—all organizations were actually pursuing the same set of common outcomes:

• Increased visibility/awareness re: issue X
• Effecting policy change re: issue X
• Engaging constituents and beneficiaries and participation re: issue X
• Increased resources for issue X
• Educated constituents re: issue X
• Improved condition/quality of life in community X
• Influencing stakeholders (of X process)

Here is a list of common outcomes and measures that you can use as a guideline in selecting your own.

© 2004 Jason Saul. For reprint permission, contact books@fieldstonealliance.org or call 1-800-274-6024.