Outcome-based Evaluations
In My Opinion

Good intentions
Approached in this manner, the merit of a nonprofit organization would be determined principally by the good intentions of those who support, govern, and manage it. This notion may have been skewered however, by INDEPENDENT SECTOR S Brian O'Connell, who in Board Overboard, wrote a satirical set of minutes documenting a board meeting of a wholly dysfunctional and imaginary nonprofit organization. These minutes concluded with this report: "Any organization made up of such bright people, who are so dedicated and who have worked so hard, must be doing a great deal of good."

Fidelity to process
Under this approach, the merit of a nonprofit organization would be determined principally by its ability to "do things by the book." Peter Drucker has pointed out that organizations managed in this vein ultimately become more concerned with "doing things right" than "doing the right thing."

Magnitude of resource
Organizations with more and better-trained staffs, larger budgets, or more impressive facilities will be seen as superior. Omitted from this view is any acknowledgment of the real difficulties that larger organizations face in responding to crisis situations or in exploring innovative responses to previously unrecognized problems.

Quality of programming
If those outside its walls tend to evaluate a nonprofit organization in terms of its resources, those inside—trustees, staff, volunteers—tend more often to evaluate it by the extent that it is able to make good use of those resources, i.e., by its programs.

Proponents of outcome-based evaluation do not argue that any of these other approaches is inherently invalid. What they argue, rather, is that they simply are not sufficient. Through no fault of its own, a once rich-in-results nonprofit organization might become an ineffectual organization with little or no impact on its community, an organization that is fundamentally spinning its wheels as it meanwhile (with the best of intentions) squanders the scarce resources with which the public has entrusted it. Outcome-based evaluation supersedes those other less formal modes of evaluation by cutting directly to the question of organizational effectiveness. At the same time, it also incorporates those earlier modes through the understanding that a nonprofit organization cannot be effective without good will, stable management systems, adequate resources, and high quality programming. Those are all necessary. In the end, however, only a demonstrably positive and intended outcome is sufficient.

Ascertaining Outcomes

Nonprofit organizations are so astonishingly diverse in the purposes that they pursue that it would be inconceivable that any single measure might be found through which their outcomes might be measured or even ascertained. At one extreme are organizations that can provide hard statistical data concerning their specific achievements or the impact of those achievements on their communities. At the other extreme are organizations whose effects may only become evident over time and, even then, result in outcomes that are too indirect or subtle to readily be measured as several observers of the nonprofit scene have observed, nobody would seriously ask a religious organization to demonstrate its effectiveness by calculating how many souls it had saved "per pew-hour preached."

For those nonprofit organizations whose outcomes are most difficult to ascertain, a better strategy might be simply to accept that as a given and to deal with it as forthrightly as they can. Some nonprofit organizations— an ambulance service, a home for endangered children—literally deal in dramatic matters of life and death. Others—a chamber music society, a specialized library do not. Their role is not to save lives, but to enhance their quality. In comparison with the major life-and-death organizations, the contributions these other organizations make to the community may be considered to be more modest, even incremental. They are however, no less legitimate contributions and no less worthy of support.

Across the entire spectrum of nonprofit organizations, a great deal of work needs to be done to articulate better the multitude of ways that such organizations enhance the quality of individual and communal lives. In this respect, outcome-based evaluation is more demanding than earlier models, in that organizations must clarify what they intend to achieve. Work must also be done to expand the range of means by which organizational effectiveness can be ascertained. This will be especially important for those organizations whose impact is not immediate and dramatic, but modest, incremental and only ascertainable over what may sometimes be many years. Longitudinal studies, focus groups and other forms of qualitatively-based research will have to be combined with survey research, statistical data and other quantitative approaches to create an expanded repertory of evaluation tools. For various professional associations across the nonprofit field, this may be among the most challenging tasks they could undertake in coming years.

For most nonprofit organizations, the advent of outcome-based evaluation should be a welcome event. It promises to provide benefits both within and outside the organization. Internally, it can provide the clear vision of a desired future that best serves as a basis for strategic planning. By specifying what is to be accomplished and by identifying the means to be used in ascertaining progress toward that accomplishment, management can provide itself with an important set of tools designed to assess and stimulate employee performance. Externally, it provides a sound basis for building development efforts. It identifies in the clearest possible way what it is that the organization hopes or expects to achieve and indicates how it will be accountable for ascertaining whether it is doing so.

In the end, outcome-based evaluation is nothing more than the distillation into question form of the most fundamental considerations that almost any person would take into account in deciding whether or not to support a particular nonprofit organization. Three basic questions provide the underpinning. Question one: Do I understand what this organization is trying to accomplish, and do I think that its goals are worthwhile? If not, I should go back to the beginning and think about supporting some other organization. If so, I will move on. Question two: Is this organization actually accomplishing what it says it's trying to accomplish? Again, if not, I should go back to the beginning and think about supporting some other organization. If yes, I will move on to question three: If I do support this organization, will the resources I contribute be used efficiently? Still again, if not, I should go back to the beginning and think about supporting some other organization. If so, than this is an organization that can be truly well-regarded and which is eminently worthy of my support.

Thus viewed, outcome-based evaluation does not seem very radical. For many in the nonprofit world, however, it does seem long.



Stephen E. Weil is the Emeritus Senior Scholar in the Smithsonian Institution's Center for Museum Studies.
Mr. Weil's most recent writings about museums and museum workers are collected in A Cabinet of Curiosities: Inquiries into Museums and Their Prospects, published in 1995, and Rethinking the Museum, published in 1990. Both are available from the Smithsonian Institution University Press, 800-782-4612.