Success Metrics

The fetishization of metrics

Social Edge — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:20:00 -0500

After looking into the Fetishization of Scaling-up, we are wondering whether we are making a fetish of our metrics.

Social Edge friend Jed Emerson and his colleagues penned one of the key documents of social entrepreneurship, Social Return on Investment (SROI): Exploring Aspects of Value Creation. In it, they wrote:

Social Value is created when resources, inputs, processes or policies are combined to generate improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole. It is in this arena that most nonprofits justify their existence, and unfortunately it is at this level that one has the most difficulty measuring the true value created.

Examples of Social Value creation may include such "products" as cultural arts performances, the pleasure of enjoying a hike in the woods or the benefit of living in a more just society.

To quote J. Gregory Dees again, Social Value is "about inclusion and access. It is about respect and the openness of institutions. It is about history, knowledge, a sense of heritage and cultural identity. Its value is not reducible to economic or socio-economic terms."

Let me say that again: the value of social entrepreneurship "is not reducible to economic or socio-economic terms."

Let's pull out and take a wide-angled look at the central issue here: quantity vs. quality. It may turn out to be an issue that's central to human life, both personally and for our survival on this planet.

The Quants have been taking a bit of a beating recently. Let's find out who they are, and then figure out whether the distinction between quantitative and qualitative has anything to teach us about social enterprise.

In economics, it's the people who use incredibly complex mathematical models to drive their buying and selling of stocks who have earned the name "quants" -- and a book about themselves by Scott Patterson whose subtitle tells you much of what you need to know about them: The Quants: How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed It.

I don't believe the average social enterprise is employing these math wizards, indeed I don't particularly think these math wizards would want to be employed by people who put the human impact of their work on a level with -- or in many cases, above -- financial gain. It's not their style.

Bur the word "quant" is spreading -- a recent post on the Muqawama blog applied it to the authors of a cover article in what is arguably the world's top scientific journal, Nature: "So the quants, not content with mucking up the financial world, have turned their attention to the dynamics of irregular war. ... I am wary of many quantitative efforts made to 'explain' the dynamics of war".

In this case, the math is a great deal simpler -- but the issue, again, is that the world does not easily reduce to quantities.

Quants are people who rely on quantitative analysis. They use numbers to figure out what's what. At times that's useful: cash flow is important, in fact it is often thought of as the "life blood" of any enterprise. But it's not, or it needn't be. Even in war, "morale" can mean more than guns and ammo, and the pen can be mightier than the sword.

Because we're human. Because we're complex creatures. Because we have feelings, and care, and are moved by the things we care about. And we engage the world as social entrepreneurs because we care, because we're passionate.

You might say that the world we live in is largely run by numbers -- by volume of sales -- whereas we would prefer a world run by the values -- by depth of impact.

So at a very fundamental level, we are Qualits, we are the folk who know there's more to human life than numbers can possibly capture.

And yet -- investors are bright people. And they want to know -- what's the impact? How sure are you? Have you measured that? What are the numbers?

The paper Jed Emerson and friends wrote that I quote from above proposes ways to provide answers to those questions, while admitting their suggestions do not "attempt to definitively quantify and capture all aspects of the benefits and value that accrue as a result of a successful program".

The question we are therefore asking has to do with the part of our work that cannot be quantified.

Are you a closet Quant?
Are you a died-in-the-wool Qualit?
A bit of both?
Are we making a fetish of our metrics?
Does a focus on numbers get in the way of our humanity?
Do funders require us to produce metrics that are unreasonable or irrelevant?
How frustrating is a lack of metrics when trying to decide whom to support?
What impact -- impossible to capture in numbers -- are you most proud of?
What impact measured in numbers makes you most proud?
They say quantity can become quality -- is that really true?

Join Charles (Hipbone) Cameron as we try to make sense of quantity, quality, and the nature of good work.

Outcomes Measurement

Social Edge — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:23:51 -0800

Outcomes: The Common Language for an Efficient Nonprofit Marketplace
Hosted by Debra Natenshon
CEO, The Center for What Works

The movement for an efficient online capital marketplace is gaining attention, momentum and players. Recently, a variety of organizations including Great Nonprofits, Social Markets, Give Well, Root Cause, and even GuideStar and Google, have taken steps toward solving the enigma of connecting greater donor dollars to the highest performing nonprofits. They share a common desire to offer more transparent, high quality and comparable information for the sector. An evolved system will allow donors to make better giving decisions (i.e. less relational and more information-based) and serve to benefit nonprofits by offering opportunities for learning and improvement. The critical additional ingredients are the content for systematic comparison and the capacity of nonprofits (i.e. time, money, expertise) to measure outcomes that matter and their willingness to report them publicly.

The landscape is clear. Nonprofits’ desire to continuously improve services, foundations’ need for better, more transparent tools for funding decisions, and donors’ demand to move beyond the overly simplistic program/overhead ratio for giving decisions.

Logic Models and the theories of change have proven useful first steps to help nonprofits to plan. Beyond planning, nonprofits have struggled to implement their goals; how can we in the social sector measure our performance toward our stated missions in a way that both stimulates our own improvement as well as satisfying the requirements of the grant-maker and donor communities to measure and assess impact?

The search for the next best ratio or metric has proven elusive because there is no one metric sufficient to address the demands. The social sector may never become as efficient a market place as the private sector due to its extraordinary complexity; however, there are ways to dramatically increase efficiency. The basis for an evolving system to collect and report outcomes must begin with a common understanding of the key outcomes to be achieved and a common way to measure them.

The Center for What Works, partnered with the Urban Institute since 2004, believes the answer lies in better performance measurement grounded in better information, data collection and ultimately comparable metrics. Ideally, a sector-wide framework of outcomes and key success indicators would guide nonprofits about what and how to measure.

Foundations have the ability to dictate reporting requirements, but until the sector is able to speak a common language, with a common framework for the outcomes, reporting serves primarily as additional burden. Nonprofits are churning out volumes of data for different constituencies and grant-makers and government have no method to assimilate the divergent information into a process that allows for better decision making.

Join us for this online discussion and browse our resource links to thought-leaders, articles, and examples.

Questions:

1.   Power -- who has the power to establish outcome and indicator 'standards'?
2.   Privacy -- who will share what data under what circumstances? What do nonprofits feel about that degree of sharing? What data should be shared -- information describing the metrics they track? The data points / metrics themselves? Both? What will be publicly accessible?
3.   Resources – how can we afford to expend more time, money, and effort to publish more data? How can we make the process more efficient?
4.   Common outcomes across programs – what efforts are underway?   Who have you worked with, and who else needs to be at the table, to make decisions about a common outcomes framework in your type of work?

Join Debra Natenshon in the conversation.

New Metrics for Today's Social Entrepreneurs

Social Edge — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:35:40 -0700

In his recent Social Edge interview, Brian Cayce former Peace Corps volunteer in Turkmenistan and founder of the social investment firm Grey Matters Capital, said that an important factor his firm uses in deciding to invest in a social firm is whether or not they have developed metrics for success.

When asked what those metrics should be, he replied that they should be tailored to the mission of the firm. This spotlights the dilemma of social entrepreneurial metrics. Social benefits are often intangible and hard to quantify and they may not be measurable in the short or even medium term. Moreover, it is difficult sometimes to connect a firm’s work to a specific social change, making development of accurate metrics for a social enterprise complex.

Despite these barriers, social enterprise metrics have come a long way from the discussion that took place on Social Edge in 2003 in which very general measurements were discussed and the emphasis was on measuring progress of the movement rather than individual endeavors. In a more recent conversation on Socialedge.org, Deb Levy and Kathy Brennan laid out specific guidelines for measurements for social impact.

In addition, sophisticated quantitative and qualitative tools have been created by the New Schools Venture Fund, the Acumen Fund and various private and non profit consulting firms (download The Double Bottom Line Project, published by RISE at the Columbia Business School) to provide precision data for success and social impact tracking.

Social entrepreneurs now have a smorgasbord of measurement methodologies to choose from in addition to developing project-specific metrics (i.e., families served, reduction in arrests, units built, jobs created). They include:

•    Balanced Scorecard Methodology (New Profit Inc.)
•    The Acumen-Mckinsey Scorecard (Acumen Fund)
•    Social Return Assessment Scorecard (Pacific Community Ventures)
•    AtKisson Compass Assessment for Investors (AtKisson)
•    Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (World Bank)
•    OASIS: Ongoing Assessment of Social Impacts (REDF)

But in the end, it is up to you to determine which metrics and which measuring systems fit your endeavor. They must demonstrate that you have delivered the social impact your mission calls for, and tell investors how your business will generate revenues in ways that forward your mission and provide a profit to them.

Stanford Don and successful social entrepreneur Rick Aubry encapsulated this when he told KReST at IIT of Bombay, "We measure our success based on the impact of our work and if we have been able to sustain that impact. We don't promise our investors enormous returns but we say that the businesses that we run will be sustainable and fundamentally deliver social returns".

So what is the bottom line of determining the bottom lines? Five principles are woven through discussions of metrics that have taken place here and at other sites over the past four years:

1. Do have a set of success metrics
Funders and investors want to know that you have a way of measuring your success.

2. Tailor your metrics to your mission
If you are running a non-profit, then focus on social impact; if you are running a for-profit, you need the third bottom line - ROI.

3. Measure what you can in real time, but understand that social change is often measurable only over a longer period.
Try to find polling and survey organizations that are measuring the long-term trends and use their free published data.

4. Learn about established methodologies for social measurements
Applying them will save you work, get better results, and signal investors that you are serious about metrics.

5. Look at the cost-benefit of your metrics
Determine what percentage of your operations should be reasonably dedicated to success measurement and set it aside in your proposal and operating budgets.

Tell us how you organized your success and social impact measurement. Join Patrick O'Heffernan in the conversation.

Web 2.0 and measuring effectiveness in the social sector

Social Edge — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:08:21 -0800

Paul Lamb, a Man on a Mission, helps you understand new tools and processes for reviewing and evaluating the work of social benefit organizations online.

As new Web 2.0 tools continue to bleed into the social sector, cutting edge evaluation tools are also on the rise. A variety of new software programs and online services are pushing the envelope in an attempt to help social benefit organizations better assess themselves and be measured more effectively by clients, supporters, and evaluators.

Some of the most interesting evaluation tools making the rounds include:

1. Orgnet offers visual organizational and community mapping software to help analyze complex social networks and determine important relationships. Everything from identifying appropriate sports team leaders to mapping terrorist networks.

2. Zoomerang and Survey Monkey are online tools for customizable surveys conducted over the Internet.

3. Innovation Networks and their free Point K tool help social benefit organizations evaluate their internal effectiveness and plan for appropriate organizational change.

4. Certi.org offers some interesting conflict and emergency planning and evaluation tools. A little outdated, but some good links to a variety of global projects and resources.

5. Helpalot, a project still under development, allows anyone to list and network with others regarding their charity affiliations and to offer reviews of social benefit organizations online.

This discussion will highlight on some of the latest tools and processes for evaluation – the good, bad, and ugly. Novices and experts alike are encouraged to share opinions and experiences relative to the following four questions:

1) What are some of the latest and greatest social sector evaluation tools you are familiar with and which ones would you recommend (in a Web 2.0 context)?

2) What new processes and trends are emerging around the technology that is significant and worth paying attention to?

3) What are the key evaluation needs and challenges of your organization/venture or those you are familiar with? Are they (or can they be) adequately addressed by emerging Web tools and processes?

4) If you could build the ideal online evaluation tool, what would it be able to do for social benefit organizations and their constituents?

Please share your thoughts!

Patrick O'Heffernan - Oct 10, 2006 5:17 pm (#1 Total: 11)

Zoomerang

I have used Zoomerang mumerous times and love it. The free for small non-profits aspect is great for this community. the only drawback is that, even though they are in my neighborhood and my organizationis a paying customer, I have never been able to get thorugh to the two women who share the top job to talk about inviting them to a fund raiser in which we would plug zoomerrang. Oh well, a great program

Patrick O'Heffernan - Oct 10, 2006 5:19 pm (#2 Total: 11)

very useful post!!

forgopt to say that...very helpful

plamb - Oct 10, 2006 8:32 pm (#3 Total: 11)
Paul Lamb

Survey tools

Thanks Patrick! yeah, Zoomerang is a good tool Survey Monkey is also pretty good, I have found, but limits you to only 10 questions if you want to conduct a survey for free.

Cheers,

Paul

Julius - Oct 11, 2006 3:29 am (#4 Total: 11)

Thanks for mentioning Helpalot. I just found this site (social edge), immediately bookmarked it and signed up :).

Kaye Swafford - Oct 13, 2006 1:45 pm (#5 Total: 11)

community mapping

I am looking for a mapping program like the one you used to produce that map image at the top of this page. I work with a non-profit that has a nationwide eVolunteer force. A US map that can be easily updated by zip codes would be fantastic, as would a world wide map updated by city/country.

Do you have any suggestions where I can find such a gem?

Thanks, Kaye Swafford

Julius - Oct 14, 2006 7:18 am (#6 Total: 11)

community mapping > Google maps

To Kaye, you can use Google maps or Yahoo maps and try to build something for yourself:

http://www.google.com/apis/maps/

http://developer.yahoo.com/maps/

You might try to play with Drupal, an open source content management system that can have these maps integrated. But it still would require some real work and expertise. You could also make use of sites that have these maps integrated in their design like:

http://www.frappr.com

Where you can get your own page and people can link with you with a location. For instance (the not so heavilly used, but that's more my own fault for not promoting it): http://www.frappr.com/helpalot

Hope it helped

Patrick O'Heffernan - Oct 14, 2006 9:56 am (#7 Total: 11)

I like Ruby on Rails

Nice, clean programminglangauge. Site5 and other hosts now run special teams just to host Ruby websites because so many oprogrammers like it. Drupal is a great open-source content management system, but I find Ruby much easier to work with.

As far a map goes, take a look at the map on http://www.thepeoplechoose.org. If you like it, email me here through my blog (Patrick O on the Edge ...above on this page) and I will direct you to the progammer who wones and leses the rights to it. It was orginally created for dailykos.

plamb - Oct 15, 2006 2:26 pm (#8 Total: 11)
Paul Lamb

Community Mapping

Julius and Patrick: thanks for the great mapping resources. Some other interesting work on community mapping using visual representations of various and overlapping data sets like income levels, housing, and economic development has also been done in recent years. check out http://www.policylink.org/EDTK/Mapping/

Cheers,

Paul

plamb - Oct 15, 2006 2:42 pm (#9 Total: 11)
Paul Lamb

Evaluation processes and challenges

With regard to one of the original questions posed around evalutation processes and trends, here is an interesting Fall 2006 piece in the Stanford Social Innovation Review that outlines some of the current evaluation challenges faced by social benefit organizations and funders, called "Drowning in Data".

The article also includes a listing of the language common in the world of evaluation these days:

Effectiveness – How well a program produces its intended outcomes in the real world

Efficacy – How well a program produces its intended outcomes under ideal conditions, such as in a laboratory

Evaluation – The systematic assessment of the value, merit, significance, quality, or state of affairs of a program, product, person, policy, proposal, or plan

Formative Evaluation – An evaluation that takes place while a program is ongoing and that provides feedback for improvement

Impacts – Outcomes proven to be caused by a program

Logic Model – A model of how a program will contribute to its specified outcomes

Outcomes – Changes in individuals, organizations, communities, policies, or governments

Outputs – Tangible products that result from a program’s activities – such as the number of brochures distributed or the number of people served – that lead to intended outcomes

Process Evaluation – An evaluation of the activities and events that occur as a program is delivered

Summative Evaluation – An evaluation conducted at the end of a program that determines whether the program met its goals

Theory of Change – Assumptions about the nature of a social problem, what its solution is, and how particular actionswill lead to the solution

Patrick O'Heffernan - Oct 17, 2006 9:06 am (#10 Total: 11)

Good list. I am going to....

use it with my volunteers at The People Choose after the elections to develop lessons learned and determine if we will privitize and how to structure the business plan. I have a volunteer who has creted a number of successful start-ups who write the biz plan adn this will be useful for him.

Thaks Paul.

Julius - Oct 20, 2006 6:49 am (#11 Total: 11)

Thanks Paul, for the "Drowning in Data" link.

Evaluation for Social Change

Social Edge — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:47:41 -0700

Entrepreneurship and evaluation—at first, the two concepts seem to be contradictory. On the one hand, there is the image of the social entrepreneur as a maverick and visionary, developing new programs and ways to address the thorniest societal needs and to bring about systemic change. On the other hand, the common image of the evaluator is that of the academic researcher, spending months, some times years, collecting data and publishing reports. Entrepreneurs are doers. Evaluators are thinkers. What do they have in common?

At Innovation Network, we think they have a lot in common. Both are inquisitive. They challenge the status quo. And they both seek to answer the question: What difference are we making?

Over the past twelve years, we have worked with hundreds of nonprofits and social enterprises to integrate the entrepreneur’s quest to do things better with the evaluator’s quest to understand what works and why. Through our work, we have found that when organizations evaluate their work, they have the knowledge and skills to:

Manage their internal matters, programs, and services effectively;
Gain a stronger understanding of what is happening in their programs, and how those programs are affecting people and communities; and
Collectively raise a strong voice in funding and policy decisions.

In our experience, evaluation empowers organizations and becomes a catalyst for social change.

Getting Practical

For many, evaluation sounds good—in theory. But let’s get practical. Most social entrepreneurs are the program director, fundraiser, spokesperson, bookkeeper and general jack-of-all-trades. Adding evaluator to the list doesn’t seem feasible.

Believe it or not, evaluation is easier than one might think. And, evaluation is high-impact; a little bit goes a long way. For example, in our work to break down the barriers to evaluation, we recommend the use of a logic model. A logic model is a commonly used tool for clarifying and depicting a program and its intended outcomes. It shows the relationships between what is put into the program (resources), what the program does (activities and outputs), and what results (outcomes) the program produces over the short and long term. Click here to view a sample logic model.

"Evaluation is high-impact; a little bit goes a long way."

Because entrepreneurs wear so many functional hats and are entrenched in “doing the work,” the logic model helps to bring a big picture perspective to their work. It articulates the results you want achieve and what change you want to occur as a result of your work.

The logic model is a useful tool for social entrepreneurs, because it also wears multiple hats and serves many purposes. For example:

Program Planning & Management. Used at the onset of a program, or even during the concept stage, the logic model will help you think through program strategy—to help clarify where you are and where you want to go. It “connects the dots” between resources, activities and outcomes and can bring focus and prioritization to your work.

Communication & Consensus Building. The logic model presents a snap shot of your program and is a powerful communication tool. It can be shared with board members, volunteers, staff, colleague organizations and donors to build common understanding around your work and what you hope to achieve. Increasingly, funders, particularly in the international arena, are requiring prospective and current grantees to submit logic models.

Evaluation. A logic model helps you articulate intended outcomes. As a result, you evaluate the short, intermediate and long-term impact of your work. If you don’t know where you are going, how will you know when you get there?

Accountability. When your program components and outcomes are clearly articulated, stakeholders know you’re accountable. It provides a framework for you to be responsible and answerable to your goals.

At its core, the logic model helps to make the entrepreneurial vision tangible. Let’s face it. In this results-based world, you can’t secure funding and resources on good intentions and passion alone. The business lexicon of ROI, bottom-line results, measurable outcomes, and high performance has created an analytical lens through which the complex and often intangible work of social change is discussed. The logic model is a planning tool that will help ensure your success.

Getting Started

If you’re interested in creating a logic model, there are a number of resources to support you. A good place to start would be Innovation Network’s Logic Model Builder. The Logic Model Builder is a free online tool that walks through a step-by-step process to create a logic model. It can be accessed on our website at http://www.innonet.org.

Other Resources:

Online course on developing logic models and evaluation plans: an online course from the University of Wisconsin, Extension on developing and applying logic models. Designed for the beginner, this user-friendly course includes an audio track, worksheets, resources, and examples.
Logic Model Overview: a logic model overview with links to workbooks, PowerPoint presentations, etc. from the University of Wisconsin, Extension.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide: a clear and concise discussion of the use of logic models and their importance for program and evaluation planning.
Introducing Program Logic Models: a six-page summary of logic model concepts prepared by the Kellogg Foundation.
Outcomes Based Evaluations Using the Logic Model: a training program from SAMHSA about logic models and evaluation.

Veena Pankaj is a Project Manager at Innovation Network where she provides oversight and technical assistance to grassroots nonprofits in the areas of program planning, evaluation and capacity building.

Heather Peeler is a Senior Associate and works with the nonprofit community to encourage usage of Innovation Network’s free online tools.

Innovation Network, Inc. ("InnoNet"), is a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit that builds the evaluation capacity of nonprofits and funders. InnoNet offers free Web-based tools for nonprofit program planning and evaluation at http://www.innonet.org.

hpeeler - Jan 10, 2005 2:30 pm (#1 Total: 30)
Innovation Network

Welcome

Thanks for participating in this discussion on evaluation. Veena and I look forward to your questions and comments. To start the conversation, we’d like to hear from you.

Have you used a logic model in your work? If so, please share your experiences and opinions – both positive and negative – about the usefulness of this tool.

BChevalier - Jan 11, 2005 3:57 pm (#2 Total: 30)

Program size and logic model usefulness

Are there some programmatic areas / program structures that translate better to a logic model than others? The first nonprofit I worked for years ago didn't have programs exactly -- they put teams of consultants together to work on international development contracts, but those contracts weren't exactly programs (or if they were, they weren't the organization's programs.) And another group I worked with more recently had very complicated programs with multiple intervention strategies and multiple goals. The second group tried to use logic models, but shoehorning their 5 goals into the logic model resulted in a document so unwieldy that no-one wanted to work with it (which made it basically useless). Is there some "happy medium" that best fits into the logic model structure?

Veena_Pankaj - Jan 11, 2005 4:31 pm (#3 Total: 30)

Program Size and Usefullness of Logic Model - Response

You bring up a very good question. Are logic models useful for all program types? Unfortunately, I cannot argue that this one model can be applicable to ALL programs. However, I would like to add that if used correctly, it can be a very useful planning tool for MOST programs. A logic model can be viewed as a visual representation of your program. It’s a tool that can help graphically represent what it is you are doing, either by program goal, or major content area that exists within your program. In your first example, where teams of consultants were put together to work on international development contracts – each of those contracts must have had a main purpose or intended goal (or even multiple goals). These goals could have further been broken down into individual activity groupings or components that could illustrate the causal link between the activities or strategies and the intended outcomes. While this technique may seem unwieldy at first, it is extremely powerful in identifying common outcomes and coordinating program strategies.

In your second example, you mention that the organization had very complicated programs with multiple goals and strategies. The logic model can be extremely useful in breaking down complex programs into more manageable pieces. In addition, when you are developing a logic model, it’s important to have the staff members involved in each aspect of your program be involved in creating that particular component of your model. Ensuring that major stakeholders are involved in your planning process can help ensure buy-in to your overall program strategies and outcomes. I hope this answers your question! Thanks for visiting the Social Edge website.

Kurt - Jan 12, 2005 11:30 am (#4 Total: 30)

Scorecards

As a newcomer to the f measurement field: what is the difference between using a logic model, and a scorecard? Or is it the same?

ebroze - Jan 12, 2005 11:36 am (#5 Total: 30)

The model

I have not used the model, however the last NPO I worked with in a fundraising experience could have been an opportunity for that organization to use it. They used the survey method only. I agree that it is as important to use evaluation in management tactics as is strategic planning.Thanks for posting the model

taiyashiner - Jan 12, 2005 11:53 am (#6 Total: 30)

How much detail is detailed enough

I have been working with the logic model for about 2 years and it is still in draft format - it seems that as the organization and our programs become more focused the logic model is more useful.

I have been creating an logic for each program and just decided to create one for the organization as well.

The difficulty seems to be that when I was creating the model that it seemed to become too detailed? Any ideas on how detailed to become?(I know and agree that we need to have a group effort around the logic model - still building volunteer/committee capacity.)

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Karen Guskin - Jan 12, 2005 12:00 pm (#7 Total: 30)

Using logic models

As the national HQ, we created a logic model for our home visiting program. We then had to get it out to the field and are working to get everyone familiar with it -- for example, integrating it into the training we do for parent educators. We have gotten good feedback on how helpful it is for describing our program to stakeholders and of course people like that it clearly specifies outcomes.

Cass - Jan 12, 2005 12:58 pm (#8 Total: 30)

Re: Welcome

I began using a logic model to better organize and clarify my thinking about our education programs. I knew there were gaps in understanding imputs and outcomes. As the years have gone by, we've used it as a group to come to consensus about what we think we're doing and whether or not the data we gather demonstrates it. It promotes reflective thinking about the work.

Cass - Jan 12, 2005 1:13 pm (#9 Total: 30)

Re: Social Entrepreneur Workshops

We resorted to the logic model to clarify what we wanted to accomplish and how we would do it in our collaborations--our small non-profit literary center uses it for collaborating with partners: a research project, a collaborative educational program and an administrative collaboration. An unexpected result was the ability to find language that really described, concretely what, who, when and where. The logic model forces everyone to sit down, slow down and think. It can greatly encourage deeper understanding, dreaming, conversation and better results.

Veena_Pankaj - Jan 12, 2005 2:34 pm (#10 Total: 30)

Re: Scorecards

--Your Message Here-- A score card is generally a performance management tool used by for-profit businesses that help them focus on internal processes, financial management and clientele. A scorecard helps to link organizational strategies to a performance measurement system. I see the logic model as a scorecard for nonprofits. A logic model can help link the activities or strategies of a program to its intended outcomes. These outcomes can then be assessed to determine the overall effectiveness of a program. I hope this is helpful.

Veena_Pankaj - Jan 12, 2005 2:46 pm (#11 Total: 30)

Re: How much detail is detailed enough

--Your Message Here-- The advice I usually give to the organizations that I work with is this: It can be as detailed as you want or need it to be. Typically people have different versions of a logic model depending on who the audience is. When using a logic model to show a funder or a board member, I usually limit the amount of detail that’s portrayed. For the most part, these audiences aren’t too interested in the minute details of the program. When using it for internal purposes with program staff, I tend to include more detail. In developing a logic model you don’t necessarily want it to be too detailed or task oriented. That type of detail belongs in a work plan. A logic model should include enough detail to give you and those you work with a general framework for your program. Good luck with your program planning!

sista - Jan 12, 2005 2:55 pm (#12 Total: 30)

Sista's of the Hood

We are a non for profit orgn. that provides a holistic-approach to selfsufficiency to individuals in our improvised communities by net working and applying available resources. our purpose is to aid with Hands-up not Hands-outs. we work with victims of homelessness we work with former offenders and dislocated individuals. We take what we know and apply it. we provide motivational work-shops as well as educational resources with financial literacy We are for change and the change we provide is showing others how to make a meal with a loaf of bread a can of pork-beans and no meat. when people have no life support they learn nothing regarding life. so we are a part of a support

hpeeler - Jan 12, 2005 5:52 pm (#13 Total: 30)
Innovation Network

Re: Using logic models

Karen, thanks for sharing your experience using the logic model to build buy-in with stakeholders. Have you had success using the logic model with your funders or potential funders?

hpeeler - Jan 12, 2005 5:56 pm (#14 Total: 30)
Innovation Network

Re: Welcome

Cass, thanks for sharing how you have used the logic model to build internal consensus and agreement about your programs. Involving multiple stakeholders in the process can be a challenge. What were some of the hurdles you and your colleagues encountered and how did you overcome them?

amanuel melles - Jan 12, 2005 7:17 pm (#15 Total: 30)
With people, with ideas, in action

Logic Models and Community Outcomes

Thanks for starting this discussion on logic models. I do use logic models (LM) and provide training to non-profits on evaluation, including LM. An area that I'm interested to find out more info is the use of LM in the context of community outcomes (as opposed to service outcomes), where results tend to happen over long-term. Would be super to hear from anyone who has experience or can refer me to cases out there. Thanks.

amanuel toronto, canada

Karen Guskin - Jan 12, 2005 7:24 pm (#16 Total: 30)

Re: Using logic models

Great question -- our local program sites have used the logic model to apply for funding and we have used it at National to help write grants. In both cases, it's been a useful tool, but since it's relatively new, I'm not sure that we have the data on the success of the grants yet. Your question makes me think about how we might best get this information from our local sites.

jcm0114 - Jan 13, 2005 7:54 am (#17 Total: 30)

Program Evaluation

I am a doctoral student in an educational leadership program in NC. One of my current courses is program evaluation. We are meeting tonight for the first time so I'm not sure what models will be taught as part of the course work. The texts we will be using are Assessment Essentials by Catherine Palomba & Trudy Banta (1999) and Evaluation: A Systematic Approach by P. Rossi, M. Lipsey, and H. Freeman (2004).

I have printed out information from this site and will be sharing it during our class this evening if given an opportunity to do so. I look forward to future discussions regarding program evaluations on this site to receive insight into my own learning.

Cgasca - Jan 13, 2005 12:50 pm (#18 Total: 30)
Social Entreprenuer

Logic Models

This link will direct you to a logical framework model, which I found useful in my consulting work.
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ausguide/ausguidelines/1.cfm

As a consultant I found that there are many intagible benefits that a service may provide and such transaction may be difficult to measure. The logical framework helps you sort out what is measurable and what is not and how your actions link to your intended mission or goal. However, I usually filter my analysis through several logic models such as the 4p's of marketing and business logic, sales, operations, finance. In social services there more clinical means to measure outcomes, however, their application to soft/intangibles such as self-sufficiency is hard to incorporate.

Kzakama - Jan 14, 2005 6:54 am (#19 Total: 30)

Re: Program size and logic model usefulness

I have just regisered to participate in this discussion, which I believe is a very useful one with practical outcomes for all of us.

First, I ask a question, is the logic model the same as logical framework (logframe)?

While I worked with a small NGO, we did not need the logframe because we were applying for small grants and lacked the skills to use the model. However, in the organisation I now work, we use the logframe for big projects. This then may validate the fact that the size of the project does matter. And of course, logic model does require some training.

Since our work is mainly capacity building for local NGOs, we do not require them to use logframes, even though their activities feed into our evaluation for the main project. Rather, the local partners are expected to use participatory monitoring and evaluation tools to evaluate the impact of their activities. This means that members of the communities where our partners work get to decide what change they want to see, how they want to measure the change and how they will they know/tell that change has occured. We use simple participatory tools that the communities are comfortable with.

I am willing to share a few examples of this approach as I settle into the discussion.

Robin Kane - Jan 14, 2005 8:48 am (#20 Total: 30)

Re: Logic Models and Community Outcomes

Great question, Amanuel. I would also like to hear from others about on-the-ground examples of using the logic model in community efforts.

One thought is that the logic model can complement methods often used for community-level initiatives.

Innovation Network frequently works with funders who are engaged in community-wide efforts that involve multiple organizations and programs. Some of these efforts use Results-Based Accountability or Theory of Change processes to identify the population-level outcomes that are jointly sought and the preconditions that would be necessary for success.

Each organization or program in these community efforts is responsible for more narrow outcomes. At the same time, these groups are engaged in many activities that will not be reflected in a model of the larger community effort.

The logic model can help especially on this level to organize and help prioritize the work of those groups and programs. The longer-term outcomes identified in each program's logic model should then mirror outcomes or preconditions identified in RBA or theories of change for the larger community effort.

jabstuart - Jan 14, 2005 10:39 am (#21 Total: 30)

Re: Welcome

I am self-learned in using a logic model, and used it at my previous organization to include in grant proposals. At first it was very difficult to figure out the proper sequence of activities and how they lead to a particular outcome. But it forced me to really clarify the solution I was proposing, and how the inputs and activities of different partners would coordinate together to achieve the anticipated outcomes. Using a logic model also helped me to identify redundancies and inconsistencies in the narrative. Once I had a solid logic model in place, it made the rest of the proposal fall in place so it actually helped the writing process.

Barbara Kibbe - Jan 15, 2005 9:06 am (#22 Total: 30)
Vice President for Program and Effectiveness at the Skoll Foundation

The process counts

It's my experience that any analytical tool - logic model, benchmarking, zero-based planning or even traditional strategic planning can be used well or poorly. But a logic model is particularly tricky because if you don't include outside and diverse perspectives, it can devolve into an exercise of rationalizing what we already do rather than a meaningful process of discovering the most relevant and impactful work to reach a goal. At its best, a logic model is a great tool for aligning an organization and all its resources toward a meaningful hoped for outcome.

(N.O.A.W. FND) PJ Williamson - Jan 15, 2005 10:17 am (#23 Total: 30)

Very helpful information!

All these post's have helped me make a decision to use the logic model or to ask for assistance in creating one. I am a new founder of a non-profit organization called the "Nathan Osburn & Aaliyah Wagley Foundation" AKA Care For The Kids at www.careforthekids.org. Eliminating fire injury,death and loss of property, and temporary assistance to home fire victims through public fire education, prevention, and temporary financial assistance programs in our local communities. I know what programs I want to create, but putting it into writing and action is difficult. I have networked with other organization's and individuals in an effort to learn form others on what works and their approaches. I am in other words doing my homework before I leap to lessen wasted time and money and "re-inventing the wheel". That is why I am here today. And to let everyone know I found the information very insightful. Thank you!

amanuel melles - Jan 17, 2005 12:23 pm (#24 Total: 30)
With people, with ideas, in action

Re: Logic Models and Community Outcomes

Thanks Robin...I brieflyt visited the website for the Innovation Network and found it quite resorceful.

Particular to the population-level outcomes involving multiple organizations, the individual program components can indeed help in shaping the overall long-term outcomes. What would interesting is to see what type of of indicators one would identify for population-level outcomes.

amanuel

srik - Jan 18, 2005 10:34 am (#25 Total: 30)

Some challenges with LMs

Hi all, I've found these discussion threads really useful. I lead evaluation for a small Chicago-based foundation that works in public education (k-12). We've been working on LMs for the past 6 months or so as a part of a broader evaluation framework that we are developing. While I've seen many ways in which LMs are useful, there have been quite a few challenges as well. I'm sharing a couple here

1. As a group, we have been influenced a lot and believe in systems theory and whole systems approach. Some of the more ardent systems thinkers among us question the wisdom of "breaking things up and putting them in boxes", which I admit is only a crude definition of what a LM does. However, there is concern that somehow de-constructing the program (in a LM) takes away the "synergy" between the elements, which is really the most crucial thing. Also, people question using LMs for evaluation as we would only be evaluating what we're looking for, and may be blind to what may 'emerge' (which may not be in the LM)

2. Most of our intended outcomes depend not only on our actions but also the actions of our partner school districts. For example, one of our outcomes is to get teachers to collaborate around promising instructional practices. The foundation provides some PD, process tools etc. but a lot also depends on what the school staff do on their own. So we've always had the dilemma of whether to have the LM represent our (as in foundation) work or our (as in the combined foundation + school district) work given that in the latter case, we do not have control over things that the district may or may not do.

I wonder if others have had similar experiences and if they can share those. On another note, I'm so glad to have found a group of evaluation practitioners.

Veena_Pankaj - Jan 18, 2005 11:53 am (#26 Total: 30)

Re: Some challenges with LMs

--Your Message Here-- You bring up a very valid concern. Some would argue that a logic model restricts your program by narrowly focusing on the specific inputs and outputs of a program. I find that the logic model as a tool can be extremely helpful in planning out a program, in determining what the chain of outcomes are and to set up a structure for evaluation. Logic models are especially helpful for individuals working at the program level. However, when looking at the broader picture of a program or initiative, it is often helpful to look at the theory behind the program. A Theory of Change can clarify the assumptions behind the program. In my work with nonprofits, starting a discussion about the Theory of Change can really help demonstrate the true reasons behind the program.

The second point you bring up is also a good one. While a logic model is a great tool for looking at the details of your program, you may need a broader framework to fully capture the intended goals of your grant making. It sounds like many of your intended outcomes are based on the assumption that your partner school districts are accomplishing certain things. In this case, it may be helpful for you to articulate any theoretical, contextual and even programmatic assumptions that your program may be contingent upon. Innovation Network is in the process of developing a Causal Model approach to developing a logic model that helps organizations look at their programs from a broader perspective. While this particular approach may not be useful to all individuals working on a program, it may be helpful in developing a ‘big picture’ framework for your program or grant giving strategies. I’d be interested in hearing any of your experiences using a Theory of Change and if it has been useful.

srik - Jan 18, 2005 1:12 pm (#27 Total: 30)

Re: Some challenges with LMs

Hi Veena, thanks for your reply. Interesting that you should ask about our theory of change. We've gone through several iterations of it, actually. Both narrative and graphic. But I don't think we've ever clearly laid out the theory and assumptions behind all our strategies. One point of view is also that our strategies (or programs) aren't 'mature' enough for us to be clear about the assumptions, rationale or even some of the intended outcomes. That, as you say, may be the source of some of the current challenges. I'd be interested in learning more about this Causal Model approach if possible.

Cgasca - Jan 19, 2005 9:55 am (#28 Total: 30)
Social Entreprenuer

On the ground logic models

I had the opportunity to develop a logic model for an agency providing self-employment services to mental health consumers. To build the logic model I held focus groups with mental health consumers to discuss their life-cycle and how self-employment fit within that. Then we developed the logic model.

I used life-cycle from a marketing perspective to identify products or service characteristics. From there we worked backwards to understand what the organizational impact would be in order to deliver what clients wanted. It think NGO's would find it useful to study consumer behavior and use a marketing frame of reference to develop the logic of their services.

hpeeler - Feb 1, 2005 4:31 pm (#29 Total: 30)
Innovation Network

Thanks for Participating

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this lively discussion on evaluation and social change. Veena and I really enjoyed hearing your first-hand experiences, successes and struggles in using evaluation tools like the logic model. We wish you the best of luck in your endeavors to change the world. As always, feel free to contact Veena, myself or anyone on staff at Innovation Network if we can be of any help to you. www.innonet.org

brianr - Sep 21, 2005 11:03 am (#30 Total: 30)
Western Economic Diversification

Changing the Paradigm

Logic models are very difficult. Like business plan templates, can easily become a fill in the box exercise. A logic model is a linear creation. You put something in at the beginning and something is produced at the other end. It’s about delivering something through a pipeline, not about building a network. A network is made up of people who interact with their environment, learn from their interactions, derive knowledge from what they learn, use that knowledge as a resource, and share it with others. The logic model suits an industrial society very well but lacks power in a networked one. An industrial model of social change assumes that if you grow sectors and remove barriers, you will increase participation and resolve or reduce social problems. In a post-industrial society change comes from individuals, businesses, organizations and communities moving a long a continuum of sustainability that begins with greater self-reliance. As they move along, they develop a growing capacity to engage in dynamic interactions with each other and their environment. They live and work within interconnected systems or networks. Networks characterize later stages along the continuum. The continuum of capacity and collaboration replaces the pipeline or delivery paradigm as a model for assessing change.

I like what Charles King, founding Chairman of the Social Enterprise Alliance said:

"What we are about is the business of changing the entire paradigm by which not-for-profits operate and generate the capital they need to carry out their mission -- a new paradigm based on sustainability and social entrepreneurship.

If we're successful in shifting the paradigm, we'll be able to recruit staff who are both mission-driven and trained in the business models.

If we're successful in shifting the paradigm, we won't have to constantly try to prove to the financial community the social and economic worth of investing in our work.

If we're successful in shifting the paradigm, we'll be able to recruit board members who understand the real world of business, and, at the same time, appreciate the cause that drives the business's activities.

If we're successful in shifting the paradigm, we'll have access to research to demonstrate what we already know to be true.”

Measuring Social Impact

Social Edge — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:47:09 -0700

How do you measure social impact?

We are all striving to affect change in one way or another: change in the way social problems are addressed and/or change in the lives of the constituents we serve. How will we know when we have succeeded? Every social entrepreneur struggles to identify when he or she has moved beyond implementing a good idea to achieving real change. As change agents, the success of our endeavors depends on our ability to demonstrate the impact of our work to staff, funders, clients, other stakeholders and the general public.

Undoubtedly, there are many barriers to measuring social impact—the first being the perception that social change cannot be measured or defined by metrics or data points. Many take the “I know it when I see it” approach; in other words, change is measured by anecdotal evidence gathered when clients and constituents are seen benefiting from services, not from numbers and statistics. At Innovation Network, we believe that qualitative information can be very effective in measuring social change. The challenge is to be systematic in how you collect and use qualitative data to evaluate your work.

The second challenge is the tendency to equate program performance or program activities with impact. Measuring social change is not only about counting the number of people served, number of micro loans made or new health clinics established. These benchmarks can help you confirm if you are on the right track, but they don’t tell the full story about your impact. Measuring impact is akin to asking: We served these people, we made these loans but so what? What change occurred as a result of our work?

To measure impact, you need to draw on the same creative and critical thinking skills used to launch your program. In order to measure social impact, you need to get concrete about what you hope to achieve. It’s your vision—so you have to define your own success.

The basis for your success is the outcomes or expected change you hope to see among clients, communities, systems or organizations as a result of your work.

In general, your outcomes should:

Represent changes that can logically be expected to result from activities articulated in a logic model,
Be within the program’s sphere of influence,
Be generally accepted as valid by various stakeholders of the program,
Be phrased in terms of change, and
Be measurable.

Often entrepreneurs are tempted to stay focused on the big goals that they have set out for their programs. However, we have found that it is helpful to think about outcomes along a continuum of change starting with what is in your immediate control at one end to what you hope to accomplish in the long-range at the other end. Think about:

What changes do you expect to see?
What changes would you want to see after that?
What changes would you hope to see after that?

This helps you to ensure that your outcomes are measurable and realistic.

We recently worked with Liza Chambers, a 2004 Echoing Green Fellow. Liza’s organization Soliya is dedicated to promoting intercultural understanding and awareness and galvanizing young adults to act as constructive global intermediaries. For Liza’s Connect program, she has defined the following short term, intermediate and long term outcomes:

Short-term Outcomes

Intermediate Outcomes

Long-term Outcomes

Program participants (university students) develop empathy & understanding for alternative perspectives.

Participants educate friends and family based on what they have learned.

The community has increased empathy for alternative perspectives.

Change in attitude

Change in behavior

Change in condition

Identifying outcomes provides structure to your vision by articulating where you want to go and what you hope to achieve. How will you know when get to where you want to go? You need evidence or indicators that signal that you have succeeded in achieving the desired outcomes.

Indicators can be quantitative or qualitative. They should be meaningful, direct, useful, and practical to collect. In creating indicators of your success, think about the following:

What. Describe the condition, behavior, or characteristic that you will measure.
Who . Specify the target population you will measure.
How Much . State the degree of change you expect to see.
How many . Identify the amount of change among your target population that would indicate a successful level of achievement. This sets the target for your work; base this on an understanding of your baseline and a level of change that is reasonable for your program.
When. Note the timeframe in which this change should occur.

Examples of Soliya’s indicators are as follows:

Outcomes:

What do we want to achieve?

Program participants (university students) develop empathy & understand for alternative perspectives.

Participants educate friends and family based on what they have learned.

The campus community has improved empathy for alternative perspectives.

Indicators:

How will we measure our success?

The majority of participants will be able to express views that are different from their own by the mid-point of the program.

The majority of students report speaking to friends and family by program completion.

Increased attendance for public cultural events, lectures, academic courses, etc. in the year following the program.

Once you have defined your outcomes and indicators, you are well on your way to measuring social impact in a systematic and credible way!

Other resources

Key Steps in Outcomes Management. 2003. Harry P. Hatry and Linda M. Lampkin. The Urban Institute. This is the first in a series on outcome management for nonprofit organizations published by the Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310776_KeySteps.pdf

Developing Community-wide Outcome Indicators for Specific Services. 2003. Harry Hatry, Jake Cowan, Ken Weiner, and Linda M. Lampkin. The Urban Institute.

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310813

Outcomes Based Evaluations Using the Logic Model. 2002. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. A training program about logic models and evaluation. (http://capt.cnsusa.com/docs/OutcomesBased.pdf).

Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. 1996. United Way of America. A step-by-step program evaluation manual for agencies supported by United Way. Ordering information available is at: http://national.unitedway.org/outcomes/resources/mpo/). Not available online as a PDF.

About Innovation Network

Innovation Network's mission is to improve nonprofit results by building evaluation capacity. Working with nonprofit organizations and funders through evaluation consulting, training, Web-based tools, and outreach, we seek to increase evaluation and planning knowledge and skills for the entire nonprofit and philanthropic field, and to build the ability of individual nonprofits to meet their missions. Measure results. Make informed decisions. Create lasting change. For more information, see: http://www.innonet.org/

Deb Levy has more than ten years’ experience in social science research with a strong background in public policy and criminal justice to the organization. At Innovation Network, she provides oversight and technical assistance to nonprofit organizations in the areas of program planning, evaluation, and capacity building.

Kathy Brennan is an experienced team leader with a deep knowledge of social welfare programming and evaluation, and more than ten years’ experience in the nonprofit sector. Ms. Brennan is the lead evaluator for several large-scale initiatives at Innovation Network and has conducted dozens of training efforts on logic model and program evaluation.

Deb Levy - May 18, 2005 7:55 am (#1 Total: 11)
Innovation Network

Welcome!

Thanks for joining us for this ongoing discussion over the next week. Kathy and I look forward to answering any questions you have and/or engaing in any relevant discussions.

Kzakama - May 18, 2005 10:08 am (#2 Total: 11)

Hi, Deb and Kathy

Just yesterday I was asked to explain how I will capture qualitative change in people's lives. It seems easy to capture quantitative data but it isn't so easy to measure qualitative changes. I said that I would use life stories or case studies. I wonder what your views are on the subject.

Looking forward to a fruitful discussion.

Kabura

Kzakama - May 18, 2005 10:10 am (#3 Total: 11)

Thanks for the links to the resources, they are excellent and useful.

Kabura

Kathy Brennan - May 18, 2005 12:33 pm (#4 Total: 11)
Innovation Network

Capturing qualitative changes

Kabura,

Many people agree with you that capturing qualitative change information is more difficult than quantitative information. Qualitative information also tends to add a richness and tell a story that can't be seen in numbers. Measuring qualitative change requires looking systematically across qualitative data and having set research questions so you know what you are looking for--what would the indicators of qualitative changes in people's lives be for your program? Once you know what those indicators are you can use interviews, focus groups, even journals and surveys to get at this information. Stories and case studies as you suggest are a great way of painting the picture of what can happen with one person or one family--looking across data over many people invovled in a program can give you information about how successful a program is overall.

Kzakama - May 19, 2005 10:02 am (#5 Total: 11)

Indicators of Qualitative Change

Thanks, Kathy,

I admit I have not been paying attention to planning systematically for qualitative changes. This is a problem with many local organisations in Nigeria (and I daresay, international organisations working in Nigeria as well). I usually spend a lot of time on the quantitative changes, sometimes to meet donor demands, and just wish/hope that I will be able to capture a few qualitative change as a bonus!

Also, I hardly look 'across data over many people involved in a program' as you stated. The stories and case studies I collect are usually few and haphazard. I can now understand the difficulties that our partners face when we request for cases/stories - we do not plan well in advance what we want to capture or how we are going to capture it!

Great start, looking forward to more tips.

BChevalier - May 19, 2005 12:06 pm (#6 Total: 11)

Measure vs. mission?

I have a philosophical question about a possibly destructive side effect of current evaluation practices. The nuances of reality, in all their richness, cannot be crammed into a small mechanical space, and yet that’s precisely what many nonprofits are asked to do by funders looking for evaluation results.

Nonprofit staff and consultants are therefore presented with this quandary: To what extent should we orient toward funders' requirements (and cramming reality into small boxes), and to what extent should we stay grounded in our own missions? Too far in one direction means no grant funding. Too far in the other direction means that we subvert our missions - focusing on organizational survival, instead of on our organizational purpose. Where do you find the balance point?

Deb Levy - May 20, 2005 6:03 am (#7 Total: 11)
Innovation Network

Measure vs. Mission- the debate

I understand your struggle between meeting funder's requirements for evaluation vs. standing ground with an organization's mission. At Innovation Network, we take a participatory approach to evaluation in hopes that if an organization is involved in the planning of the evaluation (developing a logic model with goals, creating evaluation questions, and evaluation plans), the results won't threaten the organization's mission. In other words, we advocate from the beginning of program planning that organization's work with their funders to agree upon outcomes- short, intermediate, and long-term. If this occurs, then evaluation results will provide insight into whether the short-term (and possibly the intermediate) outcomes occured and if so, will the intermediate and long-term follow?

If someone wants to give an example, maybe we can work through a chain of outcomes and look at them in relation to an organization's mission.

-Deb

BChevalier - May 24, 2005 10:02 am (#8 Total: 11)

Outcomes alignment?

In general, do you find funders receptive to your proposed outcomes? Or (as in my experience) do funders tend to want to bend your outcomes (or even flat-out replaces them) to suit their missions? Do you have any suggestions for effectively negotiating outcomes that truly match both your own mission and the funder's?

Kzakama - May 26, 2005 3:31 am (#9 Total: 11)

My experience is mainly with micro-level projects which allow us to plan with the communities. So far, there has not been any tensions between our outcomes and those of the funders. But in bigger (multi-year, multi-million naira) projects, it usually takes longer to square off expectations and the funders are usually insistent on their outcomes. In some cases, there has been useful negotiations which resulted in win-win situations. In others, the funders have been outright insistent and we have skirted around it (working extra hard to meet some of the expectations of the communities that did not suit the fancy of the funders). That was our lot because our organisation was a donor-dependent local NGO!

Pamela McLean - May 26, 2005 6:38 am (#10 Total: 11)

Kzakama - tell me more

Kzakama

Some of your keywords and phrases suggest we have overlapping concerns and experiences.... You say "I am swamped with on-going work. Second, access to internet resources is quite limited where I work..." and you mention "naira". I clicked on your photo hoping to find more information about your projects - but only found your posts. Please tell me more.

I wonder if any of CawdNet's SIGs (Special Interest Groups)overlap your interests and needs. Regarding problems with Internet access you sound like our other Nigerian associates: "bandwidth challenged". (And I would guess that, like them, you serve communities who are bandwidth poor.)

On the bandwidth rich side of CawdNet (based in UK - but welcoming volunteers anywhere on the Internet) we use the high bandwidth Internet connections we have in our homes. We try to support our bandwidth challenged associates in their attempts to pull information from the Internet. CawdNet is small - and pretty swamped - but hoping that Social Edge will help us to do what we do better and also find more volunteers and donors.

If your community project serves needs that overlap other CawdNet community projects perhaps we can gain strength through learning from each other. You are welcome to any relevant information we are accessing on behalf of our Nigerian projects. Maybe as we get to know each other better we may also discover areas for collaboration.

I look forward to your reply - either here or as a personal email

Pam

kshampongo - May 29, 2005 1:51 am (#11 Total: 11)

Inovations into acess technologies

Attachments:

the ACCESS TECHNOLOGY PROJEC1.doc (32 KB)