Measurement: The great dilemma

A recurring theme in the last few months is the challenge and need for nonprofit and ministry organizations to find a decisive way to self-evaluate. By extension, Catalyst and other grantmakers need criteria to evaluate not only applications but also the outcomes of projects after they receive funding.

There are a few particular difficulties in this:
-Reluctance: Nonprofit leaders are largely involved in matters and issues that are driven by compassion rather than efficiency. Many times they are resistant to the "corporate" emphasis on numerical evaluation. In my years at camps I saw the anger that was prompted when someone from the board asked how many campers had made faith commitments during a particular program. Staff found that offensive and felt it diminished the nature of relationships to something merely transactional and manipulative.
-Ambiguity: Social services and spiritual projects are notoriously difficult to quantify. How do you measure the benefits of a relationship? Rarely is there a single point of emphasis and the people involved may all have different value and priority for the varied outcomes.
-Tools: Cultural change doesn't lend itself to a simple bar graph. There is a shortage of recognizable methods for identifying and communicating the kinds of outputs and outcomes we're interested in supporting.
-Objectivity: Nonprofit workers are almost always passionate about their work. (We wouldn't partner with any that aren't). Their clientele are understandably grateful for the most part for what is being accomplished. It is a lot to ask of either of those groups to provide a relatively unbiased perspective.
-Hope: As may be the case in other fields (but I suspect is exaggerated in these ones), nonprofit and ministry people are optimists. They look for the signs of life in even the most desperate situations. It's a necessary prerequisite of much off what they do, but when applied to evaluation is clearly distorted.
-Narrative: When numbers are hard to generate or interpret we rely on stories. Funding for charities has always been based more on tugging the heart strings than swaying the intellect. The traditional pitch of "a sob story and a slideshow" is deeply entrenched and typically effective. Anyone can come up with at least one compelling account of someone who's life is being bettered from their efforts.

Despite all of these impediments there are efforts being made widely to develop useful and relevant ways of measuring the results of nonprofits. As I wrote about previously, Jim Collins has produced a monograph of Good to Great aimed specifically at the social sector where he argues for the necessity of determining standards of evaluation that are measurable. It is a very live discussion among the professionals I met at the recent PIGS conference as well.

Prior to the start of Catalyst I was involved in starting a new church in our community. We were under the authority and support of the church where I had been staff for several years; and I reported to the leadership there. When after more than a year our new congregation wasn't significantly growing the leadership began to question the wisdom in continuing. Of course I resisted. I could see the sparks of potential and the impact we were having on the few people who were involved. Ultimately the decision was made to close the new church. It was difficult for all involved (new congregation, myself, and the leaders of the larger church), and was made all the more difficult because there was no standard of measure by which to evaluate what was happening.

I admit that I find the process of determining objective measurement criteria for matters of spirituality and social justice to be both daunting and dangerous. Obviously we don't want to reduce the efforts of our partners to spreadsheet entries. At the same time, I have become increasingly aware that with those criteria established and agreed upon there is a freedom to pursue a vision with greater confidence that you have defined your purpose and won't be dissuaded by the inevitable swings of energy and enthusiasm.

I am eager to work with our partners to figure out how to farily and helpfully evaluate their honourable efforts.

Over my head

I used to be a lifeguard.
Last night I stood with my toes in the ocean after a long day of amazing learning. I've lost track of the number of conversations I've been a part of in the last 40 hours about the world of philanthropy I've just come into. The sheer immensity and variety of the need in the world is so far beyond my comprehension it leaves me staggered. Added to that are the discussions about projects and strategies for trying to address some of those needs at individual, local, regional, national, continental, and even global levels.
Standing on the shoreline I reflected that my lifeguarding experience might make me an above average swimmer, but that ability is pretty much irrelevant compared to the size of the ocean. On my own I'd be lost in minutes.
Among the many things I'm noticing about other participants in this PIGS conference is how many of them came to their philanthropic roles in unusual ways and are now finding that God had uniquely prepared them for the work they are doing now. Several of the disparate tracks and themes in their lives have come together in fascinating ways to enable them to bring about good now.
I can only hope and trust that I will be the same.
It reveals another aspect of the shoreline experience. I am continually realizing that the God I love and try to serve is far beyond what I've understood so far. More than anything else, I desperately want to deeply know God. I'm going to take the risk of stepping into the waves.

Finding Our Heart

I recently told someone that if they want to understand the mind of Catalyst they should read our website; but if they want to understand our heart they should read this blog. This is where the less fully considered and critiqued ideas are expressed. It gives insight that the more refined text of the website might miss.
I am spending the start of this week at a conference in Ft. Lauderdale with Professionals In Granting Society (PIGS), a gathering of representatives from several foundations. It is an inspiring group in many ways. I'm going to have a lot to think about from this event.
One of the most significant thoughts of the day today is the way that other foundations have identified what they are most passionate about and endeavoured to make that the focus of all their efforts. They are connecting their hearts and mind.
This is accomplished in various ways. Some have defined several separate categories of funding within their portfolio to reflect a diverse interest and strategy; others have become very narrowly focused and demonstrate great depth of wisdom and advocacy regarding the fields with which they are concerned.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this year at Catalyst is primarily about defining our interests. If we are able to effectively discern these things during our first year we will be able to bring about much greater influence in the years to come.
There is a spirituality to this. Not in any way to suggest that we should only support explicitly Christian projects, but that as we seek to express our sense of purpose we will be praying that God shows us how we can participate in those things that are part of his great story for all the world.